DAILY QUESTIONS & MODEL ANSWERS
Q1. Political defection is currently being encouraged through the exploitation of the anti-defection law, which was designed to prevent it. Do you agree? Observation (250 Words)
Paper & Topic: GS II – Election related issues
Model Answer:
Introduction:
- Defection and party switching are institutional ills that transcend politics, parties, and states. Defection is defined as “one party member’s abandonment of his devotion to his political party” or, more simply put, “when an elected official joins another party without resigning from his current party for rewards.”
- In order to address the epidemic of political defections, the 52nd constitution amendment act on Anti-defection Legislation was enacted, and the 10th Schedule was added to the Indian Constitution in 1985. The rule’s main objective was to stop “the evil of political defections,” which could happen as a result of office benefits or other similar circumstances.
Body:
Historical context and anti-defection legislation violations:
- The High Court of Bombay at Goa ruled on February 25 that the former members of the Congress Legislature Party (CLP) in the Goa assembly who switched parties to the BJP are exempt from disqualification under paragraph 4(2) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, also known as the anti-defection law.
- This provision states that in order for a member to request an exemption from disqualification, the merger of the original political party and approval of the merger by two-thirds of the MLAs are required.
- It is abundantly evident from the phrase “such merger” that the original political party must merge before two-thirds of its members approve of such a merger.
- The HC seems to have missed the significance of the phrase “such merging.” Contrary to what the court has ruled, the members of the legislature can agree to a merger after it has already taken place.
- The anti-desertion law aimed to stop political deserters. Yet, the decision of the Bombay High Court seems to infer that paragraph (4) of the 10th schedule is meant to promote defection. This decision will probably lead to a wave of defections.
Observations required for a merger to not be viewed as a defection:
- A merger of two political parties is insufficient to exempt a member from exclusion due to defection and to take into account this member’s claim that he joined the party with which the merger has occurred, as stated in the opening phrase of sub-paragraph (2), “for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph.”
- Also required is the agreement of not less than two-thirds of the members: Such a merger requires the support of not less than two-thirds of the members.
What needs to be done:
- Intra-party democracy: The 170th Law Commission report emphasised the importance of intra-party democracy by arguing that a political party cannot conduct itself democratically on the outside while conducting itself in a dictatorial manner internally.
- As a result, the parties must talk and consider the members’ perspectives. This would promote party democracy and open communication among its members.
- Nonpartisan decision-making: Several commissions, including the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC), have suggested that the President (in the case of MPs) or the Governor (in the case of MLAs), on the advice of the Election Commission, should make the decision to disqualify a member instead of the Presiding Officer.
- Judge Verma ruled in the Hollohan ruling that the Speaker does not fit the requirements for such an independent adjudicating body because his tenure is reliant on the support of the House majority.
- Furthermore, a significant element of the fundamental characteristic is violated by his appointment as the only arbitrator in the dispute.
- Hence, defection-related events need to be handled by a different authority.
- Restricting the Speaker’s discretion: In accordance with a recent Supreme Court ruling, the Speaker must decide whether to disqualify a candidate three months after receiving the application. It is not within the Speaker’s discretion to do nothing.
- Important choices: Several observers believe that the law should only be applied to choices that have an effect on the stability of the government. For instance, passing the annual budget or adopting the suggested no-confidence resolutions from the Dinesh Goswami Committee.
Conclusion:
- Before the nation’s governing structure becomes unstable, seditious defections must be stopped. Due to the temptation of money and power, the current legal system is manifestly flawed and has failed to properly prevent defection. To help develop a democracy that is truly representative, anti-defection laws need to be rationalised.
Q2. Analyze the case for selling off profitable Public Sector Units (PSUs) and any potential macroeconomic repercussions. (250 Words)
Paper & Topic: GS III – Indian Economy
Model Answer:
Introduction:
- Disinvestment or divestment refers to the act of a firm or government selling or liquidating an asset or subsidiary, or the process of reducing a government’s holding in a PSU (Public Sector Undertaking).
- With the privatisation of Air India, the listing of LIC, the largest insurer in India, may represent another critical turning point in the country’s economic reform plan. The successful IPO of the life insurance giant will enable the speedy disinvestment of other government-owned enterprises.
Body:
Rationale for selectively selling and divesting PSUs:
- Funding for economic recovery: To support the economy and pay predicted increases in healthcare spending, the government is under pressure to find additional financing.
- Asset sales and disinvestment revenues will be required to cover a portion of the increase in public spending in the 2019 budget.
- Minimum and maximum governance are required to eliminate the need for government involvement in non-strategic sectors.
- Government shouldn’t operate businesses, hence the divestment is justified.
- The dynamics of competition for private players are impacted by government engagement.
- Efficiency improvement: Diversify PSU ownership to boost the efficiency of any given firm. For instance, Hindustan Zinc is the second-largest zinc-lead miner in the world and one of the top 10 silver producers in the world. It profited from the privatisation.
- More economic potential for private players: These companies’ economic potential may be better found in the hands of strategic investors due to a number of factors, including capital infusion, technological improvement, and good management practises.
- Better use of tax dollars: Customers and taxpayers bear the financial burden of loss-making PSU operations. The same money may be used by the government instead for programmes that genuinely help citizens.
The effect on the macro economy:
- Governments have traditionally used disinvestment to achieve financial objectives rather than growth objectives.
- Disinvestment is not a process that is favoured by society because it works against the interests of people who are less fortunate on the social spectrum.
- Over time, the divestment policy has transformed into a method of raising money to address the fiscal imbalance, placing less focus on market discipline or strategic purpose.
- Consumer welfare may occasionally decrease as private monopolies develop.
- Increased efficacy and output are not necessarily a result of switching from public to private ownership.
- That might lead to worker layoffs, which would cut off their source of income.
- The private sector frequently uses capital-intensive techniques that exacerbate India’s unemployment problem because it is primarily motivated by the pursuit of profit.
- Loss-making units don’t generate as much revenue.
How to Proceed:
- PSU asset monetization generates higher returns than disinvestment, which is the alternative.
- Determine the industries that the government has prioritised based on its strategic interests.
- The ability of PSU investments to provide respectable social and strategic benefits must be assessed.
- That should be a temporary programme.
- Government ownership is required for sectors having strategic value, such as defence, natural resources, and others. The government should exit non-strategic industries like lodging, soaps, travel agency, airlines, and the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages.
- The government should think about strengthening the regulatory framework that ensures efficient market conditions.
- Instead of PSUs, the government should create regulations that make it easier for new players to join the game. Also, the regulations should guarantee that customers’ fundamental demands are met.
- allowing both domestic and foreign buyers to participate in open bidding for stakes.
