General elections in India, for the Lok Sabha are about two years away and it is precisely the time to talk about changing our system of governance.
As universally acknowledged, our parliamentary system, copying the Westminster model, has failed us, and none of us wants a single party system as in China or a dictatorship as in North Korea. We do not want theocracies; no Muslim country model for us and so also no Vatican. France (with its inscrutable President and Prime Minister system), Germany, and all the other Europhiles are governance-wise failures (please do not mention Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland). Each of the Nordic countries sports a population that fits inside a major urban area of India and therefore their systems are irrelevant to us. Canada and Australia are not even independent countries and therefore we leave them aside. Israel exists only on the strength of its Diaspora and we are not as confident of ours. Japan lost a decade or more, and we cannot afford that. Perhaps South Africa, but we have to see how the ANC does in the next elections, how much of its support has eroded after having been in power for less than two decades. South and Central American countries are iffy propositions at best, given the bully to the north.
And, that gets me to the bully to the north, the United States of America. Yes, it is the US’s political system we should emulate – have a meaningful presidential system of governance, with the executive, legislative and judicial arms independent of each other.
But, as you know the US is on a perpetual election cycle. The entire House of Representatives is elected every two years. Every second year, one third of the Senators stand for election, after having completed a full tenure of six years. The majority in the House or the Senate may change hands every two years, and has done so quite often, like in the last mid-term (of the President’s term) elections. The party out of the White House also starts its presidential election campaign, with about half a dozen potential nominees, at around the same time.
But, most important of all, the incumbent president starts his election campaign at the end of the mid-term elections of his first term (a person has a set limit of only two terms as president) even though typically if he decided to run for a second term there would be no competition from his own party. Therefore, what we have is a president governing for two years (first term), running for elections for two years, and if successful, governing for two more years (of the second term) and being a lame-duck president for the next two years (which George W Bush was when the financial-cum-economic crisis hit). It is this system I am advocating for India. And, I have my reasons.
There are some conditions. Only candidates of National Parties – INC, BJP, CPI, CPI (M) and BSP, as per the Election Commission – are eligible to contest for the post of president of India. This would automatically reduce the number of regional and caste based outfits. Who would not want this, a measure of bringing in uniformity? Centralizing power improves efficiency of governance, does it not? You would not have Mamatadi, Jayalaithaa Amma, Kalaignar, not to mention Lalu Yadav, Uddhav and Raj Thackerays, Badals and so many other sundry players pulling the central government every which way. Never mind that the country is vast (still not vaster than the US) and has distinct cultural, social and linguistic features across the regions. All would be subsumed under a political Bollywoodian bonanza. The country will be unified under such a political system.
As important as the other conditions are I am more concerned about more substantial issues. Dr. Manmohan Singh would have served two terms and he would be ineligible for a third stint (good riddance!). While there is every reason to believe that Mr. Rahul Gandhi (assuming Sonia Gandhi nixes Ms. Priyanka Gandhi Vadhera’s ambitions) will be the choice of INC I wonder who would be BJP’s. Oh, following the US system, we will have a series of debates, between and among Advani, Modi, Jaitley, Sushma Swaraj, M M Joshi, Uma Bharti, Yeddyurappa and we may even add Nitin Gadkari to the explosive mix. That would be fun, watching the fireworks.
Add to the fun with CPI and CPI (M) coming up with their list of debate eminences. At the top will be B Bhattacharya, Sitaram Yechuri, Prakash Karat, Brinda Karat, D. Raja and others. The only national party that would have no problem in nominating its candidate will be BSP – Mayawati!
As the debates continue, we would have the one percenters (the top income bracket) falling head over heels in endorsing candidates, like what Donald Trump did recently – pulling for Mitt Romney. The now defunct so-called Bombay Club, newly reconstituted to look after the monied class, will divvy up the candidates amongst themselves with a cabal sort of understanding – Mukesh will go in for Rahul Gandhi, Anil for Mayawati, Cyrus Mistry for Modi, Vijay Mallya for Yeddyurappa, and so on, all under the table. No matter who wins, the cabal would be found to have supported him or her. The pound of flesh then becomes an entitlement.
CII, NASSCOM and ASSOCHAM will spread the goodies amongst all, including the left parties. Unfortunately there are no Green National parties for the Centre for Science and Environment to endorse. Aruna Roy, Harsh Mander, Jean Dreze will have no one to support and so also Hazare (small mercies!).
Then, whoever emerges victorious will have a full two years of non-rubber stamping and non-substantial presidentship (Obama’s healthcare program is stuck in the courts, if you care to remember; the stimulus program was woefully insufficient, all thanks to the GOP Congressmen). Then, the cycle will start – primaries, debates, endorsement, and elections. India would enjoy, just as the US does, political stability, of the static kind.
That is my understanding of what a presidential system of governance portends for India. You are welcome to disagree.
Raghuram Ekambaram
As universally acknowledged, our parliamentary system, copying the Westminster model, has failed us, and none of us wants a single party system as in China or a dictatorship as in North Korea. We do not want theocracies; no Muslim country model for us and so also no Vatican. France (with its inscrutable President and Prime Minister system), Germany, and all the other Europhiles are governance-wise failures (please do not mention Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland). Each of the Nordic countries sports a population that fits inside a major urban area of India and therefore their systems are irrelevant to us. Canada and Australia are not even independent countries and therefore we leave them aside. Israel exists only on the strength of its Diaspora and we are not as confident of ours. Japan lost a decade or more, and we cannot afford that. Perhaps South Africa, but we have to see how the ANC does in the next elections, how much of its support has eroded after having been in power for less than two decades. South and Central American countries are iffy propositions at best, given the bully to the north.
And, that gets me to the bully to the north, the United States of America. Yes, it is the US’s political system we should emulate – have a meaningful presidential system of governance, with the executive, legislative and judicial arms independent of each other.
But, as you know the US is on a perpetual election cycle. The entire House of Representatives is elected every two years. Every second year, one third of the Senators stand for election, after having completed a full tenure of six years. The majority in the House or the Senate may change hands every two years, and has done so quite often, like in the last mid-term (of the President’s term) elections. The party out of the White House also starts its presidential election campaign, with about half a dozen potential nominees, at around the same time.
But, most important of all, the incumbent president starts his election campaign at the end of the mid-term elections of his first term (a person has a set limit of only two terms as president) even though typically if he decided to run for a second term there would be no competition from his own party. Therefore, what we have is a president governing for two years (first term), running for elections for two years, and if successful, governing for two more years (of the second term) and being a lame-duck president for the next two years (which George W Bush was when the financial-cum-economic crisis hit). It is this system I am advocating for India. And, I have my reasons.
There are some conditions. Only candidates of National Parties – INC, BJP, CPI, CPI (M) and BSP, as per the Election Commission – are eligible to contest for the post of president of India. This would automatically reduce the number of regional and caste based outfits. Who would not want this, a measure of bringing in uniformity? Centralizing power improves efficiency of governance, does it not? You would not have Mamatadi, Jayalaithaa Amma, Kalaignar, not to mention Lalu Yadav, Uddhav and Raj Thackerays, Badals and so many other sundry players pulling the central government every which way. Never mind that the country is vast (still not vaster than the US) and has distinct cultural, social and linguistic features across the regions. All would be subsumed under a political Bollywoodian bonanza. The country will be unified under such a political system.
As important as the other conditions are I am more concerned about more substantial issues. Dr. Manmohan Singh would have served two terms and he would be ineligible for a third stint (good riddance!). While there is every reason to believe that Mr. Rahul Gandhi (assuming Sonia Gandhi nixes Ms. Priyanka Gandhi Vadhera’s ambitions) will be the choice of INC I wonder who would be BJP’s. Oh, following the US system, we will have a series of debates, between and among Advani, Modi, Jaitley, Sushma Swaraj, M M Joshi, Uma Bharti, Yeddyurappa and we may even add Nitin Gadkari to the explosive mix. That would be fun, watching the fireworks.
Add to the fun with CPI and CPI (M) coming up with their list of debate eminences. At the top will be B Bhattacharya, Sitaram Yechuri, Prakash Karat, Brinda Karat, D. Raja and others. The only national party that would have no problem in nominating its candidate will be BSP – Mayawati!
As the debates continue, we would have the one percenters (the top income bracket) falling head over heels in endorsing candidates, like what Donald Trump did recently – pulling for Mitt Romney. The now defunct so-called Bombay Club, newly reconstituted to look after the monied class, will divvy up the candidates amongst themselves with a cabal sort of understanding – Mukesh will go in for Rahul Gandhi, Anil for Mayawati, Cyrus Mistry for Modi, Vijay Mallya for Yeddyurappa, and so on, all under the table. No matter who wins, the cabal would be found to have supported him or her. The pound of flesh then becomes an entitlement.
CII, NASSCOM and ASSOCHAM will spread the goodies amongst all, including the left parties. Unfortunately there are no Green National parties for the Centre for Science and Environment to endorse. Aruna Roy, Harsh Mander, Jean Dreze will have no one to support and so also Hazare (small mercies!).
Then, whoever emerges victorious will have a full two years of non-rubber stamping and non-substantial presidentship (Obama’s healthcare program is stuck in the courts, if you care to remember; the stimulus program was woefully insufficient, all thanks to the GOP Congressmen). Then, the cycle will start – primaries, debates, endorsement, and elections. India would enjoy, just as the US does, political stability, of the static kind.
That is my understanding of what a presidential system of governance portends for India. You are welcome to disagree.
Raghuram Ekambaram
2 comments:
India's existing system is the best, isn't it? Let anyone say anything, let anyone do anything, let anyone steal anything... We are the most liberal economy, more liberal than the US. We are the most liberal democracy ever since the beginning of history. We are the most liberal religionists too - except when it comes to mixing politics with religion.
It's not at all about presidential system or any system; it's all about the socio-psychological makeup. And in that makeup, no one in the world can beat India. Jai Hind.
Matheikal,
It is quite surprising that you got the gist of my post and I thought I had embedded it so deeply!
What I mean is no matter what system India adopts, because of the "socio-psychological makeup" - as you said - it cannot do any better than it is doing now, under any system. We will twist and turn even a despot into doing what we have always done, always do!
It is easy to blame the system without recognizing that every system we adopt gets "corrupted" to suit our fancy!
RE
Post a Comment