The two major assembly elections, of Gujarat and Karnataka, in recent times had an interesting difference.

In Gujarat, Narendra Modi was bound to be the biggest vote-catcher for BJP, and it had been with that confidence that he drop sitting MLAs and bring in fresh candidates earlier. This time, however, sensing a potential rebellion, he repeated most sitting MLAs even if he was not happy with some of them. So, at every single public rally he told people to vote for him, for the party, irrespective of the candidate.

That’s Modi’s frank talk. Theoretically, all winning candidates of the biggest party come together and elect their leader, but that is rarely the practice. A most predictable line after the announcement of election results is that the high command will decide the CM.

Karnataka, then, was a surprise affair, in which the winning candidates of the Congress actually elected the CM through a secret ballot. Whatever the reasons behind the move (there must be), but it was a rare incident, not likely to be repeated soon, least of all by the Congress.

Thus, there are two models. In the model envisioned by the constitution makers, the MLAs (or MPs) were our representatives in the whole spectrum of governance, not just in law-making. In the prevalent practice propagated by most parties most of the time, however, the MLA is a mere number in the overall tally. Just a vote when a bill is being passed – and even then our representative does not have a voice and s/he has to go by the party whip or face consequences.

The need of the hour, then, is to empower the poor MLA and MP by decentralising some of the powers of the party top brass. Let him or have a say not just in law-making but also in, for example, planning development initiatives. Unlike urban voters who need not even know the name of their MLA, for rural voters the local representative is important because s/he is helpful in facilitating welfare schemes which are often the lifeline for them.

It is in this light that the private member’s bill, moved by Rajiv Pratap Rudy of BJP, seems to be looking in the wrong direction. He has proposed a presidential form of government, something that LK Advani also proposed 15 years ago. The bill calls for direct elections for the post of PM and CM (Rudy calls them ‘the executive’). MLAs/MPs should then be delinked from the political executive, and they should confine themselves to lawmaking (which frankly speaking they cannot).

The proposal seems to be an expression of the desire for ‘strong leadership’ in these turbulent times. What is really needed is to put in actual practice what is there in the constitution. Let the MPs and MLAs be independent voice, let them vote according to their views or feedback from their constituencies (the Lokpal bill would possibly have been passed in that case). What is needed is a bill that allows a larger role for MLAs/MPs. That will not come even from a private member, given the grip of the party bosses.

And if Modi is the idea of a strong leader, he landed the post in October 2001not through direct election but through appointment by the party leadership.