Is there an easy way to make an elected representative accountable? The people of Raipur, Gunderdehi and Nawagarh in Chhattisgarh have given their answer. They have made full use of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Palika Adhiniyam, 1961, a state legislation, to recall the chairpersons of three urban bodies whom they judged wanting. According to the legislation, three-fourths of the corporators must sign a statement saying they had lost confidence in their chairperson and submit it to the district administration before the process for the vote of recall can begin. But the process cannot be initiated before the representatives in question have spent two years in office — in these cases, they have been there for the best part of four years. The principle of accountability is likely to be touched by politics as long as the process remains on the level of the no-confidence statement from colleagues, but that is neutralized once the issue is thrown open to the people’s vote.

There is strong logic in support of this weapon; the Lok Sabha speaker himself advocates it. No one can deny that it is high time elected representatives at every level were made to feel that purely self-serving politics is not acceptable. But there is also the logic that underlies elections in a democracy. A representative is elected for a fixed term depending on his function, usually for five years. There is reason behind the time given: nothing enduring can be begun or executed short of it. If the representative sits in the Lok Sabha or a state assembly, he has manifold and complex duties. There is no quick way to assess his effectiveness or intention. Besides, while the electorate of an urban body or a gram panchayat is relatively small, the electorates of members of parliament or the legislative assembly are much larger. The power to recall in such cases would become confusing and unwieldy, opening up more avenues for politicking and causing enormous expenditure.

There is a peculiar irony in the people’s demand for accountability in Chhattisgarh. The state government has become famous for riding roughshod over human rights, the imprisonment of Binayak Sen being the prime example. It has also carried on with the controversial Salwa Judum movement of arming the people, professedly against extremist political groups. It seems that the people feel quite well-armed with the state’s legislations alone, and can use them to protect themselves against incompetent or corrupt politicians. But while it is right that people should expect politicians to be accountable, it is also right that, as voters, they too should fully execute their own responsibilities. That is the essence of democracy. By voting, they give the representative five years. If a representative fails to live up to his responsibilities within that time, the voters must refuse to give him another chance. This, perhaps, is not an easy way out. But it is the only way towards considered judgment and a mature political culture.