The Governor and the national media lazy in Goa, not the Congress

It was anticipated even before the election results were out on March 11 that a massive victory of the BJP in Uttar Pradesh would have a psychological impact on newsrooms and minds of editors. But not many would have expected the impact to be so severe that media outlets would abandon rationality and balance in their coverage of news.

The coverage of the electoral verdict in Goa and subsequent process of government formation there is a case in point. There was little doubt that the popular verdict of Goa had gone against the incumbent BJP government as its Chief Minister as well as six of the eight ministers lost their own seats.

True, voters of Goa did not rely on any one single party to defeat BJP, but opted for candidates who could defeat candidates put up by the BJP, such was the anti-incumbency prevailing in the state.

In this process Congress emerged as the single largest party with 17 seats, four short of the majority mark in a 40-member assembly. The BJP secured 13 seats whereas 3 seats each were won by Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party (MGP) and Goa Forward Party. Three independent and one NCP candidate won the remaining seats.

The results were out on March 11 and on the same day, BJP President Amit Shah announced that BJP would be forming the government even in Goa. By the next day, even before the Assembly had been notified and members had taken oath, the BJP candidates who had won met and resolved to have Manohar Parrikar‎ as CM.

On March 13, the Governor of Goa appointed BJP's (which is a defeated party) nominee Parrikar as CM on the basis of certain letters she had received from MGP and the Goa Forward Party supporting him as CM.

The media immediately went into an overdrive and hailed the swift and fast action on BJP's part, with some describing it as BJP's “hunger” to serve the people of the state.

And when Congress started objecting the Governor's move of appointing Parrikar as CM without inviting or even hearing out the single largest party‎, it was termed as lazy and Congress leaders were held responsible for allegedly not being able to act in time and for their inability to stake a claim before the Governor.

The Congress's so-called failure was attributed to the internal feud among various leaders who were aspirants to the chief ministerial office. The media coverage was done on such a massive scale that even the Supreme Court asked the Congress why the party was late in staking its claim.

Was the Congress really lazy and late ‎as painted by the media and unfortunately by the Supreme Court? Or was it a brazen attempt to gloss over BJP's obviously unconstitutional, unethical and immoral move in the wake of its massive victory in Uttar Pradesh?

Let's deal with plain facts. Saturday, March 11 was the day of counting and results. Since Congress like other political parties had not announced its CM candidate prior to the election, it could have ‎elected its leader only in a formal legislature party meeting which in normal course would take place only after the notification of the new assembly.

It is also a fact that three former Chief Ministers got elected as Congress candidates and reasonable time was obviously required to elect a leader in a democratic way. Even in the case of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, BJP till date has not been able to finalise an acceptable leader as the democratic process requires sufficient time.

Needless to add, Sunday March 13 was a holiday on account of Holi and no one was expected to indulge in politics to choose a leader on such a big festival. Yet the media jumped to the conclusion that Congress was extraordinarily late in staking its claim.

The allegation that Congress should have declared its leader immediately after poll results are out, would have been possible only if someone was named by the party’s central leadership. It is amusing to note that on the one hand media outlets criticise the Congress about lack of internal democracy and also for not imposing a leader on Goa from New Delhi!

It was the Governor who in fact showed extraordinary hurry in appointing Parrikar as CM since the BJP government was defeated miserably and 27 of the 40 MLAs won on an anti-BJP plank.‎ At least the Governor should have waited for the notification of the Assembly and subsequent legislature party meetings of different political parties before taking a call. But the media failed to question the Governor’s role.

The Constitution is silent on how to deal with hung houses. Conventions and Supreme Court rulings have been guiding the conduct of Governors. The Governor is required to assess the essence of the mandate which in this instant case was undoubtedly against BJP, as merely higher vote percentage cannot be taken as an argument in a multi-party democracy following the first-past-the-post system. Percentage of votes can, for example, be attributed to a higher number of candidates as well.

Moreover in a hung house, rival political parties after winning on a different political agenda are required to come up with a common minimum program. It is a fact that except for distribution of ministerial posts, there was no common minimum program arrived at by the BJP and its sudden, post-poll allies.

So whatever convinced the Governor that the Parrikar government would provide stability even before consulting individual MLAs and political parties ? ‎Moreover, the Governor generously granted 15 days time to the BJP to prove its majority, thus allowing sufficient time for any horse trading, if required.

The Supreme Court, while declining to halt the oath-taking by Manohar Parrikar, curtailed the 15 days’ time to less than two days. This was a clear rebuff to the Governor as the rationale behind curtailing time was to prevent horse trading. Still the media coverage of the Supreme Court order claimed it was a setback to the Congress, while glossing over the role of the Governor. Most media coverage insinuated that the Supreme Court had validated everything.

None of the MGP, Goa Forward Party or independent MLAs were asked tough questions by the media on why they had ended up supporting the BJP, against whom they had fought a bitter election! Even protests against the Goa Forward Party by its supporters was covered in passing.

In 1989 Congress, though being the single largest party, declined to stake claim to form the Government at the Centre on the ground that it had lost the election being the party in power; Then only the Janata Dal was invited. In 1996, BJP emerged as the single largest party and was invited to form the Government at the Centre and only after it failed to prove its majority were other parties who had contested against each other allowed to form the United Front Government on a common minimum program.

The tilt in favour of BJP, taken by even neutral media persons and commentators on Goa, is shocking. Parrikar winning the vote of confidence will not validate what the Governor did in the first instance and it will remain as a dangerous precedent for our democracy by which any powerful central government will be able to manipulate the verdict given by the voters.

Sudiep Shrivastava is a lawyer who takes an interest in current affairs.

This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own.