Presidential Form Of Governance : Will It Work In India?

The following post is inspired by a debate in the Economic Times in the mid 2012. There is an atmosphere of political distrust that has been prevalent in the country since I can remember.  Political apathy towards the common man, rotten system, scams and not to forget the disconnect that exists between the masses and the leader (even the most celebrated) isn’t helping the situation either.

Democracy, I agree, may not be the ideal form of governance but it is certainly the best form available to us. But, ‘politics for the benefit of the common man’ is a far cry in modern day India, no need to explain that. It has been reduced to a mere fight between two groups hungry for power, the common man is just a spectator (victim) and is the ultimate sufferer. Our forefathers definitely didn’t dream of this India we are living today. They for all the righteousness deserve a better India and we owe them what they dreamt of.

Presidential form of governance can definitely work in India given the present states of affairs; cash for votes, more than often stalled Houses, irrational behaviour of our leaders, rampant corruption in public spheres, 'aya Ram gaya Ram' approach of our leaders, the list goes endless, it is definitely worth a try (dreams do come true, FAITH :) ).

Just two months back, the world's oldest democracy elected its 45^th President. It was a closely fought election but the American voters were well aware of the choices ahead of them. The positions of the two candidates—Barrack Obama and Mitt Romney—on issues ranging from medicare to taxes to gay rights were well known and much discussed. The Presidential debates leading upto the elections gave them an opportunity to further define their differences and appeal to the undecided voter. By the late evening of November 6, a few hours after polls close, the Americans knew the name of their 45th President.

Sometime in less than two years, the world's largest democracy will elect a new government. It is possible that for the first time since independence, neither of the two principal political parties will go to the polls with a clear prime ministerial candidate. The chances of a 79-year old Manmohan Singh leading the Congress for a third term are remote. And so far, the logical successor — Rahul Gandhi—has shown little enthusiasm for the top job.

The situation in the BJP, if anything, is even less clear. While there are several candidates who fancy themselves as prime ministers, they will work hard to sabotage each other's prospects. The fact that the BJP will have to chose a nominee who is acceptable to its allies only compounds the confusion.

But its not just about who will be the next prime minister. As things stand now, it is highly unlikely that any political party or formation can secure a working majority. A fractured mandate will result in a prolonged bout of political uncertainty at a time when the country needs decisive governance. As the current Lok Sabha has shown, an obstinate opposition can make it impossible for the government with a clear majority to transact business and pass laws. A fragmented verdict will make matters much worse.

When you compare two systems :  one that provides clarity to the voters about who they are electing to be their leader and what their policies are, against the second where confusion reigns supreme, which one would you prefer? Maybe, its time to debate whether India should abandon the Westminster System and shift to the Presidential System.

Traditionally, there have been three criticisms of the Presidential form of government :  the President can assume dictatorial powers; the executive is not responsible to the directly elected legislature; and finally, if the President belongs to one party and the legislature is controlled by another party, it can lead to conflict and paralysis.

Each of these criticisms can be dealt with. As the US experience has shown, there are definite checks and balances in the Presidential system. Scarred by his run-ins with the Republican-controlled Congress, Obama is known to have expressed surprise at the limits imposed on the power of the President. Second, does anyone in India really believe that accountability to Parliament is helping the executive perform better? As a matter of fact, straightforward administrative decisions like allowing foreign investment in retail have been held back because the executive is a hostage of Parliament. And as the last session of the Parliament has demonstrated, even if the government has a majority in the house, paralysis can still prevail.

The benefits of a Presidential system are compelling and far outweigh the negatives, particularly in the current Indian context. Here are some of them.

First, it will force political parties to be more democratic and robust. All political parties will have to choose their best candidates as there will be a direct head-to-head contest. The people will not accept anyone less. There will be no alternate power centres, no remote controls, and no backseat drivers. Those not in the magic circle will get an opportunity. Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama did not belong to the Democratic Party establishment. But they ran such brilliant and inspiring election campaigns that they wrested their party's nominations.

Second, the voters will know their candidates intimately as in the recent US Presidential elections. Obama has been President for the last four years and will be judged by his track record. But his opponent, Romney, has also been through a gruelling primaries process, and as Presidential candidate the spotlight was firmly on him. From his religious beliefs to his leadership of Bain Capital to his refusal to disclose his tax returns to his wealthy funders, its all there in the open. The electorate has enough data to take calls on their candidates.

Third, the President will be fully in charge of the executive. He will be able to attract the best and brightest to his cabinet, irrespective of their political affiliations. They will serve at his pleasure and be accountable to him. He won’t have to fix quotas for allies or give important positions to senior but incompetent leaders. Nor will he have to waste time thinking about their loyalty.

Fourth, the government will be stable. The President will be elected by the people and will be voted out by them. He will not have to appease unreasonable allies and indulge in compromises all the time. He can raise FDI sectoral caps, increase the price of diesel, and hike train fares without thinking that his job is in danger or that he will be forced to rollback these measures.

Fifth, the legislature will be free to do its work. The job of Parliament is to pass laws. But opposition law-makers have begun to believe their duty is to bring down the government. Once that power is taken away from them, it will bring them back to their primary task of discussing bills and passing laws that will improve the lot of the people.

Finally, it will truly engage the electorate with the democratic process. Think of a Presidential election between Rahul Gandhi and Narendra Modi. Or even P Chidambaram versus Arun Jaitley. These will be high-voltage, riveting contests.

Summing up, this is just an analysis which seems a better way to go but surely with its own demerits.As of now, I can only say, go and cast your vote on the election day, its the least you can do. Think before 'YOU VOTE'.

Till then enjoy this apposite composition by Abhaey Singh.

Don't forget to leave your feedback.