Sanjay Balan
The SVPMC Chairperson election has once again turned into the same annual political spectacle.
Until recently, the numbers were in the BJP’s favour. After the demise of one sitting member and the loss of that seat in the by-election, the equation came down to 12–12. Then came the secret ballot. The result: Congress 13, BJP 11.
Meaning, at least one “inner conscience” from the BJP camp marked full attendance.
Now social media is running its own CBI investigation. Some are saying that three BJP members cross-voted. If that is true, then two people from the Congress camp must also have gone on a political pilgrimage. What the real truth is, only the ballot box knows, God knows, and perhaps the black sheep themselves know.
The problem is, this is not a new story. Every year, it is the same script, the same suspense, the same betrayal, and the same ending. Someone from within the party sells a vote, someone mortgages loyalty, someone makes a personal adjustment in the name of “principle.” And in the end, the real person is never caught. Innocent people remain under suspicion, while the real black sheep continue to enjoy tea and biscuits inside the party with full dignity.
The biggest comedy is that the anti-defection law for local bodies was introduced in 2018. But the rules? Still not framed. So the law exists, but its soul is still trapped in a file.
The lone MP of the territory has been demanding, ever since his re-election, that this law be operationalised. He has even sent draft model rules so that they can be examined and notified. But looking at the overall mood of both political parties, it seems the black sheep are not a problem for them. They are political investments.
The anti-defection law is no magic wand, but at least it would create some fear against the buying and selling of elected members. The public votes on the basis of party, ideology, and mandate. If a councillor later turns into marketable goods, then this is not merely an internal party issue. It is an insult to the electorate. It is open cheating of the public in the name of democracy.
But perhaps nobody really wants a clean system. Everyone is simply waiting for their own season to arrive.
Until then, the black sheep are safe, the parties are silent, the public is entertained, and democracy is a little more embarrassed.
(The writer Mr. Sanjay Balan, though retired from government service, he continues to blend governance insight, land-law expertise, and candid public commentary in service of Island development) (Note: Views expressed in this column are writer’s own)
The author has very well articulated the essence of the current system of election within an election.
I feel splitting the Chairman’s tenure into five one-year terms encourages alleged horse-trading during every election. Moreover it is unrealistic to expect any meaningful progress within such a short duration, especially given the procedural and bureaucratic constraints of governance.
The tenure of Chairman should ideally be coterminous with the overall elected term. This would provide much-needed stability and provide time form planning and execution of civic projects. A stable tenure would reduce opportunistic political maneuvering as propounded by the author.
Anyway, if the incumbent fails to perform, the responsibility lies with the party, as it must face the electorate, and voters will assess its performance. The current system of annual terms appears to stem from a concern about concentrating too much power in a single individual within a small island territory. While that concern has some merit, in practice it undermines the office itself. Instead of enabling effective governance, it reduces the position to a short-term exercise, where the focus shifts from long-term public service to a short-term political survival.