It is because their existence and authority are dependent on a majority in parliament. Even a small party in the ruling coalition can dictate terms and undo policies. Strong leaders prefer a presidential system because their authority is unencumbered by parliamentary caprice. The present Indian leader too, like his predecessor Indira Gandhi, eyes more power so that he can serve the cause of his Hindu nationalist party better. It is unlikely.
He will hold aloft the banner of his party as long as he can, and will pass on the baton when the time comes. He may not perpetuate himself as a life-long leader. Indira Gandhi got a bitter taste of this strategy after she imposed emergency in India has since traversed a long distance on the democratic path. No one, however powerful, can reverse it.
Modi as a leader may not be much interested in personal glory but eyes a legacy where the primacy of Hindus is institutionalised in the political system. The Hindutva project sees strong central authority as essential to further its goals. A presidential system with one man at the helm embodies that vision. The ideologues believe a strong centre can hold fissiparous forces at bay and help maintain the unity of the country. The present system, despite its instability at times, is more representative of people.
It can accommodate the aspirations of small groups such as religious and linguistic minorities and can curb the emergence of dictatorial leaders. Any attempt to tinker with this system in favour of a strong central authority is detrimental to the democratic future of the country. They are better advised to refrain from such move. It opens a whole new dimension to the conflict that is being driven by a sectarian agenda from across the border.
The ancient link between charity and religion is reflected in organisations focussed on south Asia. At the same time, the parliament system has served as a stumbling block to even the supposedly strong leaders to govern. Instead of being answerable to the people, the legislative head is worried about keeping the elected representatives together. In such scenarios, does the legislative represent the will of the people or the whim of the party officials? The idea that the parliamentary system will represent diversity well has also turned out to be a myth.
Even without having a single seat from many states, the ruling party could have a brute majority. The same applies to many states, where a few constituencies in some districts dictate which party would rule.
On the other hand, bizarre coalitions have propped up men who were scarcely known beyond their turf before their elevation as prime ministers in the past.
All these have given rise to highly sectarian election campaigns and are creating colossal schism in our society. Caste, religious and linguistic parties are flourishing, thanks to such a system, as one can run micro-campaigns catering to each constituency.
Perhaps, it is time to shift to a presidential system at both State and the Union governments level. It is better to accept the reality that Indians tend to hero-worship their leaders. Any politician who aspires to be a national leader would be forced to win the support of people across the country. At the state level, it would end the selling, buying and renting of elected representatives, resort democracy and thrusting new leaders as per the whim of party supremos. It is time we should seriously think of changing to a presidential form of government.
Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the newindianexpress. Former Union Home Secretary. Looking at what is happening in the US, it is surprising that the presidential system is being advocated in India. And it could well have become a reality as not only did the Congress have a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament, but also had majority in nearly all state legislatures.
Therefore, there would have been no difficulty in getting the requisite constitutional amendment passed for change over to the presidential system, as was seen in the series of other major amendments she brought about. I had written in my book, Indira Gandhi—An era of Constitutional Democracy, that there must not be another case in history anywhere in the world where such legislations were sponsored by the ruler and meekly passed by a mute, deaf and brute majority in Parliament and state legislatures, in the case of constitutional amendments.
India was lucky in having escaped this real possibility. The debate in India about the presidential system arises mainly because of infirmities of the parliamentary system. Though she did not explicitly approve the idea, she did not stop her supporters from propagating it and canvassing support for it, which she could have done.
Their response in essence was that if the PM wanted these changes to be made, they would support them. Such fears surface when a powerful figure with an all-India following and charisma emerges.
Already, we have become an elected autocracy. If the presidential system is adopted, then we will lose even the pretence of being a democracy. However, there are some who believe that presidential system is more suited to India. The preference for presidential system is primarily based on weaknesses and deficiencies of the parliamentary system.
But the Supreme Court has declared parliamentary democracy a part of the basic structure of the Constitution which is unamendable. Therefore, the debate about the presidential system is academic. Also, in the present political configuration and complete polarisation, it is unlikely that such a constitutional amendment will be passed. I have, in any case, serious doubts whether India should even consider adoption of the presidential system.
The example of the US hardly inspires confidence. And Trump is not the only reason for it. His two predecessors, Nixon and George W. Bush, too, were in the same league. As for Trump, his conduct, particularly after the electoral defeat, has, for the first time in US history, raised doubts about peaceful transfer of power to the successor.
After an agonising delay, his reluctant signing of the pandemic aid and spending package Bill, approved by the Congress and the Senate, and actions leading to total government shutdowns have raised doubts about the working of democracy. His gross misuse of power by granting pardon to scores of his party office-bearers, those convicted by courts and his close relatives raise serious questions about the rule of law.
One wonders who represents the US voters — the legislature or the President. Looking at the mess in the presidential election, and the tussle between the legislature and President, it is time the US takes a fresh look at its Constitution. At least in respect of holding national election, it can learn from India.
0コメント