To change or not

Union Home Minister and BJP leader L.K. Advani has been talking off and on about the need for a switch-over to the presidential form of gove...

Union Home Minister and BJP leader L.K. Advani has been talking off and on about the need for a switch-over to the presidential form of government. The Gandhinagar session of the BJP was the latest platform from where he made such a plea. Unfortunately, on none of these occasions has he given a cogent reason why the nation should go in for a new system.

It is not clear whether the BJP concurs with his idea although Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee does not seem to have any reservations about his proposal. Perhaps the party will take a stand once the proposed commission to review the Constitution gets cracking. Whatever the case, the idea is not new. It has been floated from time to time by various leaders. However, no mainstream political party has so far supported the proposal. One reason why the BJP leaders have fallen for the presidential system could be their belief that in a direct contest to the presidency they would be in a far more advantageous position than the leaders of any other party because oftheir popularity and pan-India appeal. For instance, there is hardly a leader in any other party who can pose a stiff challenge to, say, Vajpayee in such a contest. It was for this very reason that Indira Gandhi had also floated the idea through some of her confidants such as A.R. Antulay and Vasant Sathe when her popularity was at its zenith.

Whether the change in the system comes within the purview of the basic structure of the Constitution, which is inviolable, or not, there has been no conclusive argument in favour of the presidential system. The Westminster model that India follows may have been found wanting in many respects during the 50 years of its operation but there is no guarantee that the new system that Advani advocates would be foolproof. Pakistan and Bangladesh have reverted to the prime ministerial system after experimenting with the presidential system for quite some time. Even Sri Lanka which recently went in for the presidential system in a blaze of constitutional extravagance is all setto return to the old system. The experience of our neighbours is, therefore, hardly supportive of a systemic shift. The proponents of the presidential system often have the US model in mind. But they do not realise that the Indian Prime Minister enjoys more power than even the US president as has been proved on umpteen occasions.

Indira Gandhi had little difficulty in imposing the Emergency on an unsuspecting nation. But it was the strength of the system that ultimately forced her to order polls and eventually bow out of office. Similarly, despite getting a two-thirds majority in the Lok Sabha, Rajiv Gandhi felt vulnerable and insecure when V.P. Singh mounted a powerful campaign on the issue of Bofors. If anything all this shows that the Indian Prime Minister has all the powers needed to provide good governance. In fact, there is a strong case for downsizing the Prime Minister8217;s office which has over the years become the most powerful place in government. It is true that the Constitution had not envisagedsituations like a hung Parliament and a coalition government at the Centre but then the system has also thrown up innovative solutions to such problems. Yet, if Advani is still keen on a change, let him substantiate his case more elaborately.