Don8217;t dismiss it outright

There is a well-known saying of Prophet Muhammad: Don't see who is saying it; consider what is being said.'' Because the Union Home Minist...

There is a well-known saying of Prophet Muhammad: 8220;Don8217;t see who is saying it; consider what is being said.8221; Because the Union Home Minister, L.K. Advani, is advocating the switch from the parliamentary to the presidential system for India, leaders of the Congress and the United Front have joined hands to oppose his suggestion. Some of them have gone to the extent of saying that it would be in violation of the Supreme Court judgment in the Kesavananda Bharati case, which they contend has ruled against the presidential system. This is not correct; to the best of my knowledge there is not even an obiter dicta to this effect in any of its pronouncements.

To say that the presidential form of government is less democratic than the parliamentary system is also a travesty of truth; in fact, more and more political scientists and commentators even in Britain, which is the mother of parliamentary democracy, are veering away from it. Richard Crossman has opined in his book of reminiscences that in the lastfew decades the British Prime Minister, who is supposed to be primus inter pares: 8220;the first among equals8221;, has become a dictator. He has successfully obliterated the division of powers between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. More so in India where, under the two-party arrangement which is the basis of viable parliamentary system, the prime minister has often enough interfered with the working of all the three organs, directly or indirectly. This poses the greatest threat to the liberty of a citizen.

The prime minister in India as in Britain controls the selection of legislators of his party, chooses his ministers as also appoints the judges to High Courts and the Supreme Court. This is one aspect of his position. Then there is the other where the prime minister is weak or is dependent on powerful elements in the legislature, where these powers are exercised at the behest of others, especially those who have a substantial say in the legislature. He then becomes a tool in the handsof vested interests; the worst victim in such a situation being the government machinery. The prime minister has to appoint ministers many of whom are either incapable of performing their duties or are corrupt and thoroughly undesirable.As the prime minister in our country has to depend on the majority of members in the Lok Sabha, he can hardly appoint ministerial colleagues of his choice, although that is supposed to be his privilege. Electoral considerations have struck almost a fatal blow to this privilege, with the administration being badly affected and the economy being subject to all kinds of pressures.

Both when the prime minister is strong because of a concentration of all powers in his hands in view of his charismatic leadership or when he is weak and powerless and hence amenable to both inside and outside influences, the country is the loser. The prime minister, as Prof. Harold Laski explains in his classic: A Grammar of Politics, has inevitably to be either 8220;autocratic8217; or 8220;flexible8221;.He can be accused of either 8212; being dictatorial and not being dictatorial enough.

In the presidential system there may also be some pitfalls; no system can be perfect, not even the democratic, which has shown that by means of muscle and money power even rogues and rascals can get elected to the legislature. But in the Presidential system it is less likely. That is because the power structure between the two is substantially different.

The USA has shown over the past two centuries that the checks and balances provided by its constitution are more effective than under the British system. The president is directly elected for a fixed period and is, therefore, free from legislative control on the appointment of ministers or the functioning of the government. He is free to select the best talents in the country; ministers are accountable to him and not to the legislature. They can function more freely, untrammelled by party or legislative intervention. The only check under the American constitution in thisrespect is that the presidential appointee has to be approved by the Senate; but once he is approved he is not answerable to anyone except the president.The two houses of the Congress 8212; the Senate and the House of Representatives have to confine their activities to legislative measures; they have the power to levy taxes, regulate interstate commerce, declare war and such other policy matters; but possess no executive right. There is, in consequence, a much more healthy division of powers between the three wings. They function much more independently under it than under the parliamentary system, with the result that merit, efficiency and experience are much more valued in the former than the latter. Again, the experiment has suited the multi-religious and multi-racial population of America, as it may India, which is also saddled with not only a multiplicity of religions but also castes. Because of the vastness of the electorate for the presidential poll, it cuts across these barriers.

There is also abetter devolution of powers between the Union and the States in the American than in the British system; the governors, being directly elected by the people, enjoy considerable autonomy. They have much more control over the affairs of their states than what our chief ministers enjoy. They have the residuary powers while the activities of the Union are restricted to the exercise of only the reserved powers. Moreover the Senate, which represents the different states, exercises far greater authority on the federal Union, particularly in its relations to the States than does our Rajya Sabha.

Story continues below this ad

Surprisingly, the demand for the adoption of the presidential form of government was made in the late 8217;70s and early 8217;80s by two Congress stalwarts, first by A.R. Antulay and later by Vasant Sathe, with the evident blessings of Indira Gandhi. Because of her charisma, critics alleged that it was a move to perpetuate her rule. It was then vehemently opposed by Advani and his party. After a lapse of two decades, there is astrange reversal of stands by the two sides on the issue. The Congress does not want even a dialogue on the merits and demerits of the two systems; the BJP and its allies have asked for a review of the Constitution with Advani vigorously campaigning for the presidential system. Is it politics, which is influencing the thought-process or the interests of our teeming millions? It is high time we rise above party considerations and take a considered decision based on what is really good for our country.

Zakaria is an author and former MP