People here are oblivious to the fact that this system has generated some of the most corrupt and autocratic governments in the past and institutions like the parliament and Supreme Court have often been taken for a ride and Courts often assuming overriding powers in domains of the executive and legislature and the legislature never once having quality debates on any issue and often standing as roadblock on several occasions. The system has failed in providing the necessary checks and balances often resulting in each organ of democracy subverting the constitution according to its whims.
Governance agenda of our nation is not scripted by people anymore. They are authored by party heads and party families. People have just become numbers. Even our representatives have become just numbers. Once a party has the “numbers” it has full control over the parliament and can bulldoze any legislation it deems fit without any proper debate. No party member can ever vote against his party’s wishes lest he wishes to get expelled from both the party and the parliament. Any other bill outside the government is not even taken for consideration and is struck down with brute majority.
And what is the exact opposite of this situation?
When a single party can’t muster up the necessary “numbers”? It becomes a free for all. Everyone wants a cabinet “berth”. Parties consider a “pliable” and “accommodating” candidate for prime minister. What is the result then. Governance takes a back seat. The “coalition dharma” comes into effect and ministries and departments are unnecessarily expanded. Tell me why is there a need for a ministry of heavy industries, ministry of micro small and medium industries, ministry of commerce and industry, ministry of chemicals and fertilizers, ministry of food processing industries and a ministry of steel when they could all be included under one umbrella ministry of industries. Don’t tell me because it’s work load because that’s what departmental secretaries are there for. Simple. Coalition Dharma. This in turn contributes to more red tape and lack of co-ordination thus taking development back by several years.
If on the one hand we have autocratic government then on the other hand we have a completely indecisive large lethargic dysfunctional one. Both are dangerous for the nation. What happens when a government becomes dysfunctional. People take issues to the courts. Courts use this opportunity to take decisions for the government. The parliament and executive are undermined and lead to Kritarchy.
This is just one example of how the parliamentary system has failed to take the nation forward. People need to overcome this belief that
1. Parliamentary form is “best suited” for a country as diverse as India. No it’s not. If diversity is to be encourage it should be through true federalism and decentralization up to grass roots level. Not in a unitary form.
2. Parliamentary form is more “responsible”. No it’s not. Executive decisions with proper independent legislative oversight is the best form of responsiblity and accountability.
3. We have survived with this for 70 years so need to change. No it’s not. We should thrive. Not survive. We could do much much better with a different form of government.
4. Constitution makers were “infallible”. No they are not. They are humans like us. Why else did we have more than a hundred amendments in the last 70 years compared to the US Constitution which had only 27 in the last 250 years. The constitution was framed in an atmosphere of distrust. The distrust that states would break away from the union resulted in a unitary form of government. The distrust that in the future, legislators would not by very responsible made our constitution so bulky and unreadable for the common man, putting every single detail of government transaction and day to day business in the constitution when simple legislations would have sufficed.
Kindly think about it. At least ponder over the possibility that may be, just may be, we could achieve better if it were for a more vibrant system of government. Democratic in the truest sense.
Imagine being able to elect a popular figure who strives hard to win the approval of everyone in the nation into the high office of president. Not someone who is there as a post retirement sinecure for “services rendered to the party”. A true mass leader directly elected by us.
Imagine having instead of just and MLA and and MP you could have a president, vice-president, MP both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, governor, MLA, Mayor, Councillor of you corporation or Panchayat Sarpanch and member of Panchayat all directly elected. That is almost 8 representatives per person instead of just 2 who don’t even show up once they are elected.
Imagine having subject experts running ministries at all levels, central, state and local. Economists in finance ministries, Engineers in infrastructure, power and railways, security experts in defence, scholars of international relations in external affairs.
Imagine each and every penny of your hard earned tax payer money go through serious heated debates and negotiations before being spent. Even if your representative is in the so-called “opposition”.
Imagine being able to vote for someone who is from among you and who will truely represent you and your concerns in parliament instead of being forced to vote for someone whose main objective is to become a minister or someone who you don’t even know suddenly parachuted by a party “high command” or someone who only considers you a “vote bank”.
Imagine every appointment of the government go through hard scrutiny and public televised interviews by the legislature and getting approved by them.
These are just some of the benefits that you get from a presidential form of government. Just think about the possiblities of how much our nation can grow with such a vibrant form of democracy where people actually rule. Just think about it.
The parliamentary system is well suited for India which has diversity though there could be some hiccups in the beginning. But during the last seven decades the system has passed the test and now there is no need to go for any other system. In the assembly there is bound to be difference on opinion among members. That does not mean the final resolution could be reversed with the passage of time. Our judicial system has corrected many working flaws in the constitution. Hence it be safe for the country to maintain the present constitution.
On the crafting of India’s democratic institutions, starting with foundational principles such as a parliamentary system, Pandit Nehru’s vision towered above both Sardar Patel’s and Dr Ambedkar’s. Let the aversion some instinctively feel towards Nehruji and all he stood for not get in the way of facts. No thousand foot high statues needed to demonstrate his greatness to the world. 2. Whenever we are unable to deliver, all this talk of parliamentary vs presidential takes wings. Vasant Sathe was an old supporter of a presidential form of government. How much more governmental power did Mrs Gandhi really need to lift many more Indians out of poverty …
Seven decades of experience has shown that the current system is well accepted by the people and no calamity has been visited on the nation by adopting this system.
The genius of the Indian people – who are argumentative and yet seek consensual outcomes – is best expressed through the parliamentary system with an executive answerable to parliament.
People here are oblivious to the fact that this system has generated some of the most corrupt and autocratic governments in the past and institutions like the parliament and Supreme Court have often been taken for a ride and Courts often assuming overriding powers in domains of the executive and legislature and the legislature never once having quality debates on any issue and often standing as roadblock on several occasions. The system has failed in providing the necessary checks and balances often resulting in each organ of democracy subverting the constitution according to its whims.
Governance agenda of our nation is not scripted by people anymore. They are authored by party heads and party families. People have just become numbers. Even our representatives have become just numbers. Once a party has the “numbers” it has full control over the parliament and can bulldoze any legislation it deems fit without any proper debate. No party member can ever vote against his party’s wishes lest he wishes to get expelled from both the party and the parliament. Any other bill outside the government is not even taken for consideration and is struck down with brute majority.
And what is the exact opposite of this situation?
When a single party can’t muster up the necessary “numbers”? It becomes a free for all. Everyone wants a cabinet “berth”. Parties consider a “pliable” and “accommodating” candidate for prime minister. What is the result then. Governance takes a back seat. The “coalition dharma” comes into effect and ministries and departments are unnecessarily expanded. Tell me why is there a need for a ministry of heavy industries, ministry of micro small and medium industries, ministry of commerce and industry, ministry of chemicals and fertilizers, ministry of food processing industries and a ministry of steel when they could all be included under one umbrella ministry of industries. Don’t tell me because it’s work load because that’s what departmental secretaries are there for. Simple. Coalition Dharma. This in turn contributes to more red tape and lack of co-ordination thus taking development back by several years.
If on the one hand we have autocratic government then on the other hand we have a completely indecisive large lethargic dysfunctional one. Both are dangerous for the nation. What happens when a government becomes dysfunctional. People take issues to the courts. Courts use this opportunity to take decisions for the government. The parliament and executive are undermined and lead to Kritarchy.
This is just one example of how the parliamentary system has failed to take the nation forward. People need to overcome this belief that
1. Parliamentary form is “best suited” for a country as diverse as India. No it’s not. If diversity is to be encourage it should be through true federalism and decentralization up to grass roots level. Not in a unitary form.
2. Parliamentary form is more “responsible”. No it’s not. Executive decisions with proper independent legislative oversight is the best form of responsiblity and accountability.
3. We have survived with this for 70 years so need to change. No it’s not. We should thrive. Not survive. We could do much much better with a different form of government.
4. Constitution makers were “infallible”. No they are not. They are humans like us. Why else did we have more than a hundred amendments in the last 70 years compared to the US Constitution which had only 27 in the last 250 years. The constitution was framed in an atmosphere of distrust. The distrust that states would break away from the union resulted in a unitary form of government. The distrust that in the future, legislators would not by very responsible made our constitution so bulky and unreadable for the common man, putting every single detail of government transaction and day to day business in the constitution when simple legislations would have sufficed.
Kindly think about it. At least ponder over the possibility that may be, just may be, we could achieve better if it were for a more vibrant system of government. Democratic in the truest sense.
Imagine being able to elect a popular figure who strives hard to win the approval of everyone in the nation into the high office of president. Not someone who is there as a post retirement sinecure for “services rendered to the party”. A true mass leader directly elected by us.
Imagine having instead of just and MLA and and MP you could have a president, vice-president, MP both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, governor, MLA, Mayor, Councillor of you corporation or Panchayat Sarpanch and member of Panchayat all directly elected. That is almost 8 representatives per person instead of just 2 who don’t even show up once they are elected.
Imagine having subject experts running ministries at all levels, central, state and local. Economists in finance ministries, Engineers in infrastructure, power and railways, security experts in defence, scholars of international relations in external affairs.
Imagine each and every penny of your hard earned tax payer money go through serious heated debates and negotiations before being spent. Even if your representative is in the so-called “opposition”.
Imagine being able to vote for someone who is from among you and who will truely represent you and your concerns in parliament instead of being forced to vote for someone whose main objective is to become a minister or someone who you don’t even know suddenly parachuted by a party “high command” or someone who only considers you a “vote bank”.
Imagine every appointment of the government go through hard scrutiny and public televised interviews by the legislature and getting approved by them.
These are just some of the benefits that you get from a presidential form of government. Just think about the possiblities of how much our nation can grow with such a vibrant form of democracy where people actually rule. Just think about it.
The parliamentary system is well suited for India which has diversity though there could be some hiccups in the beginning. But during the last seven decades the system has passed the test and now there is no need to go for any other system. In the assembly there is bound to be difference on opinion among members. That does not mean the final resolution could be reversed with the passage of time. Our judicial system has corrected many working flaws in the constitution. Hence it be safe for the country to maintain the present constitution.
On the crafting of India’s democratic institutions, starting with foundational principles such as a parliamentary system, Pandit Nehru’s vision towered above both Sardar Patel’s and Dr Ambedkar’s. Let the aversion some instinctively feel towards Nehruji and all he stood for not get in the way of facts. No thousand foot high statues needed to demonstrate his greatness to the world. 2. Whenever we are unable to deliver, all this talk of parliamentary vs presidential takes wings. Vasant Sathe was an old supporter of a presidential form of government. How much more governmental power did Mrs Gandhi really need to lift many more Indians out of poverty …
Seven decades of experience has shown that the current system is well accepted by the people and no calamity has been visited on the nation by adopting this system.
The genius of the Indian people – who are argumentative and yet seek consensual outcomes – is best expressed through the parliamentary system with an executive answerable to parliament.