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 45th 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.
Till then enjoy this apposite composition by Abhaey Singh.
Don't forget to leave your feedback.
