Presidential Democracy - The Need of the Hour

8/3/2019 Presidential Democracy - The Need of the Hour

1/76


2/76


3/76

PRESIDENTIAL DEMOCRACY

The Need of the Hour

JASHWANT B. MEHTA

FORUM FOR PRESIDENTIAL DEMOCRACYB-145/146, Mittal Tower, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021

Tel : 6615 05 05 Fax : 2283 5149Email : [email protected]

Website : www.presidentialdemocracy.org


4/76

CopyrightJASHWANT B. MEHTA

First Edition 1978(Published under the title Presidential System A BetterAlternative?)

Third Revised Edition : 2011

Published by: Forum For Presidential DemocracyB/145-146, Mittal Tower, Nariman Point,Mumbai 400 021Tel : 6615 05 05 Fax : 2283 5149Email : [email protected] : www.presidentialdemocracy.org

Printed at : Nimi Printers Pvt. Ltd.106, Parvati Industrial Estate, Lower Parel,Mumbai 400 013


5/76

To

My Fellow Country-men, misruled and

exploited by the unscrupulous

Politicians under the cloak ofParliamentary Democracy


6/76

P R E F A C E

There is an ever increasing frustration and discontent among thepeople against the present political system on account of itsseveral drawbacks and, as a result, the very faith of the people inthe efficacy and sanctity of our current democratic setup has beenseriously undermined. It is an admitted fact that our existingsystem has spawned an obnoxious breed of self-seeking politicians

jostling for power for personal gains in utter disregard of theinterests and welfare of the people at large.

The dubious means of election funding, the criminalization ofpolitics, the rampant corruption among bureaucrats and politicians,(where sky seems to be the limit now!) the absence of any in-builtprovisions which would compel our legislators to do the necessaryhome work on legislative matters, the frequent arbitrary changes ofministers, the recurring instability of governments both at statesand central level, the failure of the existing system to bring forthleaders who could command peoples confidence, all these factorshave contributed to the loss of peoples faith in the present system.

Based on study and analysis of mature and liberal democraciesof several countries including the USA, Germany, Britain, France,Australia, etc., a truly democratic Presidential System with certainmodifications would be lot more suitable than our presentparliamentary system for better governance of the country.

The several advantages of the system such as its stablecharacter, direct induction of top professionals in the Cabinet,separation of executive from the legislature and lesseremphasis on the party including absence of party whip onlegislative matters are too vital to be ignored. The system ofdirect elections adopted under the Presidential system rightfrom the Mayors post upwards makes it easier for better anddeserving personalities to be more fittingly groomed forhigher level leadership. The Forum also strongly recommendssome of the novel features as incorporated in the presentConstitution of Germany viz. law on regulating political parties,state funding of elections and mixed proportional representation

in lieu of the present first past the post system which does nottruly reflect popularity enjoyed by the parties in the legislature.

The rampant and widespread corruption which has led to mind-boggling scams such as Spectrum 2G, Commonwealth Games andmany others followed by Annajis crusade against corruption hasprovided the necessary spark for a fire which was waiting to beignited. While the movement for a Jan Lokpal Bill providing widepowers to Lokpal as contemplated is most welcome, we mustendeavour for a system which will eradicate the disease itself

(v)


7/76


8/76

Contents

Preface v

1. Introduction 1

2. Stability of Government 4

3. The Cabinet 15

4. Role of Legislature 23

5. Checks & Balances 28

6. Corruption 38

7. Promotion of Leadership Qualities 43

8. Electoral Reforms 47

9. Epilogue 54


9/76

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Q. What is the Presidential system of democracy?

A. There are various types of Presidential system of Government

prevailing in many countries. In all these systems, the Presidentis the Executive head of the Government. The most popularand democratic system is the American one. Under thissystem, the President, as the Executive Head of theGovernment, is directly elected by the people for a fixed term of4 years. Once elected, he is free to select his team of ministersand other administrators directly from the top intelligentsia ofthe nation as per his discretion. The ministers cannot be a partof the legislature. In case they happen to be from the legislativebody, they have to resign their seat in the legislature before joining the cabinet. The legislature (the upper and lowerhouses popularly known as Senate and the House ofRepresentatives respectively), mainly serves the function ofenacting the legislation and keeping a check on the Executivecomprising the President and his cabinet. The President has toget all the appointments (executive as well as judicial) approvedby the Senate although he is at liberty to remove any of hisaides without the approval of the Legislature.

The U.S.A., like our country, is also a Federal State havingin all 50 States as its constituents. At the State level, theExecutive Head is the Governor, who is directly elected. In ourcountry, the Governor, like the President, is only a nominalhead and all executive powers at the State level are vested inthe Chief Minister and his cabinet.

Q. How does our present Parliamentary system of democracyfunction?

A. Under our present Parliamentary system, the members of thelegislature are elected by the people and the Executive or theGovernment is formed almost totally out of these electedmembers. The political party gaining an absolute majority or thecoalition in case no single party commands a majority, elects aleader, (Prime Minister at the national level or Chief Minister atthe state level) who in turn picks up from amongst the membersof Parliament or State Assembly (as the case may be) his teamof ministers assigning a specific portfolio to each one of them.

(1)


10/76

The Prime Minister as well as the Chief Minister can continue inthe office only as long as they command the confidence of themajority of the members of the legislature.

All the executive powers vest with the Prime Minister at thenational level and the Chief Minister at the state level. Electionsare usually held once in 5 years unless the State Assemblies orParliament are dissolved earlier. The status of the President atthe national level is more like the King of England who reigns

but does not rule. He is a mere symbolic Head of the Statewithout any executive powers.

Q. Why did the framers of our Constitution prefer the Britishsystem of Parliamentary Democracy to that of PresidentialDemocracy?

A. An analysis reveals that it was mainly the familiarity of theframers of our Constitution with the British system which hadinduced them to opt for the British model. While somediscussion did take place in the Constituent Assembly about thesuitability or otherwise of the other popular form of democracyviz. the Presidential system, an overwhelming majority was sohighly influenced by the British tradition that it almost prevented

a real constructive dialogue in the matter.The eminent jurist, late Shri M.C. Chagla1, had said Thepreference for the former (parliamentary democracy) wasmainly due to (i) before Independence we had been working ourlegislatures both at the Centre and in the States more or less onthe British model and so, we were accustomed to the practicesand conventions of that system, and (ii) an elected President asthe head of the executive was too reminiscent of the kings andemperors who had ruled us in the past.

Shri B.K. Nehru2, distinguished civil servant, who hadserved as Indias Ambassador to the U.S.A. and Indias HighCommissioner to the U.K. had observed : Furthermore, theConstituent Assembly was dominated by lawyers, trained solelyin the British tradition and in the British system of Law, whoconstituted a substantial proportion of the membership ofthe Assembly. Their knowledge of constitutional law was largely

(2)

1. Broadcast by Shri M.C. Chagla: Constitutional Aspect ofParliamentary Government, January 16, 1973.

2. B. K. Nehru: A proposal for Constitutional Reform. SurgeInternational, 1985.


11/76

From Britain with lo

confined within the horizon of the Bri

It may be mentioned that eParliamentary System, we have devifor our politicians to suit their interesconventions of Westminster, the mitake decisions in individual cases. Tto confine themselves to the formul

guidelines and the overall supervisioensure that the prescribed policiesimplemented. Should the Minister violinterfere in any decision taken inappropriate civil authority, they woulcriticism in the parliament.

On the other hand, the positiondifferent. As observed by B.K. Nehru1who formulates policy and the civil sguidelines but invariably the actual apguidelines in particular cases is leministers. Permissions to start techgovernment lands or forests, grantallocation of controlled commodities su

the myriad other permissions that undrequired to be granted by governmentministers themselves and merit and tonly minor considerations in their deciCabinet)

(3)

1B.K. Nehru, ibid.

2. E.g. in Maharashtr

is the Urban Development Dept. whichMinister himself for obvious reasons.

ve!

ish Constitution.ven while adopting theated to make it convenientts. Thus, according to thenisters are not allowed toey are required, as a rule,tion of policy, approval of

of administration so as toand guidelines are dulylate these conventions and

individual cases by thed instantly invite a strong

under our system is quiteIt is often the civil servantervant who lays down thelication of the policy or the

t wholly in the hands ofical institutions, leases ofof building permits2, the

ch as cement and steel and

r our economic system arel authority, are reserved fore guidelines laid down are

sions. (see Chapter 3 The

a, the most lucrative portfoliois usually held by the Chief


12/76

Chapter 2

STABILITY OF GOVERNMENT

Q. Why did the framers of American Constitution prefer tochoose a different model?

A. While we opted for the British model mainly on account of ourfamiliarity, the pertinent question would arise as to why did theframers of American Constitution, a large majority of whomwere themselves British citizens before migration opt for adifferent model. The debate preceding the framing of U.S.Constitution reveals the most important aspect which thefounding fathers of our Constitution seem to have overlookedbut which having watched the performance during last 60 yearsof the British model we have adopted, requires seriousconsideration.

While considering the British model, there was a lurkingfear in the minds of the framers of American Constitution thatunlike Britain the U.S.A. with its vast geographical expanse,sectional interests and diversity of views did not possess thebasic criterion of the two-party system1. Although the majority ofthe first lot of immigrants were of English origin, as a nation ofimmigrants it had already started attracting immigrants fromvarious countries of Europe including France, Germany,Holland, Spain, Italy, Portugal etc.

2On account of their strong

national identities including that of language, there was everypossibility of each of these immigration groups formingindependent political parties based on their roots and the nationmay end up with several political parties and a parliamentaryform of government under such a multiple party formation maylead to a weak and unstable government which may beexploited by the political parties to suit their vested interests andin due course there could be even demand for independence by

these various groups. They therefore preferred a differentmodel providing for a stable government with fixed tenure for

(4)

1Frank J. Coppa, Presidential and Parliamentary Government in

Perspective, in The Power and the Presidency, (Ed.) Philip C. Dolseet al, Scribbers Sons, New York, 1979.2

With a continuous flow of immigrants from various countries of theworld it is literally a melting pot. In fact, the word melting pot hasbecome synonymous with the U.S.A.


13/76


14/76

Collapsible supp

(The parties fighting against each other with

together after the elections just for the sake of t

their full terms and have been fothe loss of majority support onthe ruling party or due to the los

partners or due to the murky poitself, this phenomenon is nofeature at the national level alswe have had 7 Lok Sabha elterms) and 10 Prime Ministers.

(6)

(..contd. from pg. 5) as 6 governmentsincluded three spells of Mayawati as ChiKalyan Singh, Raj Prakash and Rajnatimposed in between. The State had 3also had a dubious distinction earlier

governments between 1967-74 which inGupta and Charan Singh besides T.N.H. N. Bahuguna with Presidents rule ibetween. It had witnessed as many as 4The stories of our smaller states are evehad witnessed 12 governments in a 152007 besides the Presidents rule in bGoas case is most striking. The state haduring a period between 1990 and 2000rule in between on a number of occasiowas rotated like a musical chair on 7 occRane, Dr. Wilfred DSouza and Ravi Naik

rt!1

all their bitterness often come

he loaves and fishes of the office)

rced to resign either due toccount of defections froms of support from coalition

er politics within the partyw becoming a recurring. In the last two decades

lections (including 3 mid-

between 1995 & 2002 whichf Minister besides the spell of

Singh with Presidents rulelections during this period. Itof having as many as 8

cluded 2 spells each of C.B.ingh, Kamlapati Tripathi andposed on two occasions inelections during this period.n more shocking. Meghalayaear spell between 1992 andtween. Perhaps, among all,as many as 14 governments

. Besides it had Presidentss. The Chief Ministers post

asions between Pratap Singhduring this period.


15/76

Hold it ! Dont, dont ! I received new

minister. The opposition member

During the short span of 18(1996-98), we had as many as 3tenure being that of Shri Vajpfortnight. Earlier, the tenure of 9

t

a mere 16 months (1989-90) ducollapsed prematurely.

The NDA coalition headedconsisted of a motley groupcontinuous pull and push amongit somehow managed to complThe Congress led UPA govManmohan Singh consisted ofenough to survive the crisis at tNuclear deal when CPM withdre

Singhs Samajwadi Party whichCongress

1stepped in to save th

There were open allegationsfor voting in favour of the ruling p

(7)

1(see details in Chapter VI Corruptio

Mulayam Singh in bargain).

s that he is no longer the chief

has just toppled him!

months of 11

th

Lok Sabhagovernments, the shortestayee which lasted just ah

Lok Sabha had lasted forring which 2 governments

by Vajpayee (1999-2004)of 21 parties. Inspite ofvarious coalition partners,

ete its tenure of 5 years.rnment (2004-09) under22 parties. It was luckye time of passing of Civil-

its support and Mulayam

was a bitter opponent ofcoalition.

of pay-offs made to M.P.sarty, almost a repetition of

n regarding deal struck by


16/76

Wiped out corruption, improved the l

prosperity to plenty, when he governe

17th March, 1997 and 24th March 1997

the story which had taken placRaos tenure during 1991-96 ahad just managed to survive a

resorting to dubious means.The tenure of 2nd

term ofonwards) makes a sickeningscams and scandals that has aloss of peoples faith in the polreader may refer Chapter 14 Endless GLust for Power in authors book Alternative see page 63).

Political see-sa

(8)

t of the common man, brought

d as the chief minister between

.D.!

e earlier during NarsimhaPrime Minister when he

vote of no confidence by

UPA led coalition (2009story of unprecedented

lmost led to the completeitical system. (The interestedame of Defections, Toppling anduest for a Better Democratic

w!


17/76

I had the majority support for full two days.

have formed a governm

The Presidential system presents a sdismal picture.

1. The President elected directly

tenure. (In the American systewhereas in France it is 6 yearsfull term before him to prove himargin of victory. He is free fdislodged by power-crazy legislextraordinary circumstancescorruption, treason or otmisdemeanour can be proveddevote his full time to carresponsibilities expected of his h

2. He has full freedom to selectadministrators from amongst tintellectuals of his choice to deliv

Q. Besides Britain, there are other coItaly etc. where Parliamentary systehad a Parliamentary system earlier.these countries in the matter of politi

A. France :

France had a bitter experience of Ppast. During the period of the Fourt

(9)

If he had allowed me, I would

nt by now!

harp contrast to the above

y the people has a fixed

m, the tenure is 4 years). Once elected, he has amettle irrespective of his

rom the worries of beingators except under certainin which charges ofer high crimes andgainst him and is able tory out the duties andigh position.is team of ministers and

he top professionals ander the results.

ntries such as Germany,is adopted. France too

What is the experience ofical stability?

rliamentary system in theRepublic, there were as


18/76

many as 26 different governments in the twelve-year periodbetween 1946 and 1958. The coalitions between variousdisparate parties and groups led to differences and in-fightingfor sharing the spoils of power. The situation had reached itspeak in 1958 when General Charles De Gaulle was called uponto govern the country. The prestige of France had gone downconsiderably in the international polity and its economy too haddeteriorated. A new Constitution was drafted by De Gaulle and

was approved by 79.2 per cent votes.The sharp contrast between the old and the newConstitutions was the dominant role of the President and thereduced role of the National Assembly. It reinforced thePresidential prerogatives. The Executive branch relied on topcivil servants, administrators and talented brains of the country,who displaced the politicians in the cabinet posts. The growinginfluence of these so-called technocrats was resented by theParliament members but their effectiveness was clear. A longseries of much-needed reforms, many of which had beenformulated earlier but ignored during the Fourth Republic (1946-1958), were put into operations. All these factors coupled withthe ability to take assertive decisions in foreign policy led to therevival of the prestige of France both at home and abroad.

Italy :

The most striking example of the failure of the parliamentarysystem is that of Italy, where within a period of 61 years from1948 to 2009 there were as many as 62 changes ofgovernment under a multi-party system. Uptill now, no partyhas been able to obtain a majority and attempts to formcoalition governments have not achieved the desired results.

Britain :

Britain, the bastion of Parliamentary System, which has

presently two strong parties viz. Labour and Conservative andwhere power has been generally shared between these twoparties, had its share of troubles when three strong parties werein existence in the earlier part of the twentieth century. It was asituation in which no single party could command a majority andthere was a spate of coalition governments which did notfunction well.

(10)


19/76


20/76

Q. What will be the impact of Presidential system on partystructure in our country?

A. Strange as it may sound, but it is true that inspite of therebeing no emphasis given to the party system for the successfulfunctioning of the government, there has been a gradualevolution of a healthy two-party system in the Americandemocracy. Many political pundits attribute this to the systemitself and argue that by its inherent character, it promotes the

two-party system. A majority of the electoral college votes arerequired for the election of the President and unless there aretwo strong parties or a coalition of like-minded parties (beforethe election), it is impossible to achieve a majority of electoralvotes. A study of the pattern of elections for the U.S. Presidencyindicates that the emergence of smaller parties is notencouraged as it does not have an overall impact on theelectoral votes. Thus, for example, in the 1968 U.S. Presidentialelections, Alabamas racist Governor, George Wallace, whofounded the American Independent Party, had secured 13.59per cent of popular votes. However, this did not have an overallimpact on the final outcome and his party soon faded away.Similarly, even in 1980 Presidential elections, another powerful

personality, John Anderson, a republican had broken awayfrom the main party and contested elections as a third partycandidate securing 6.6 percent of total vote. However, this hadhardly any impact on the final outcome of the elections and inthe subsequent elections Anderson himself endorsed thecandidature of the Democratic party nominee in the subsequentelection.

In sharp contrast, our system encourages the proliferationof smaller parties or interest groups and splits among majorparties. This is mainly because even these smaller parties orinterest groups or regional parties have realized that they canplay a dominating role and dictate terms at the national or statelevel especially when no single party on its own is able toachieve the requisite majority. Among some of the most strikingexamples is that of Jayalalitha whose AIADMK Party which hadsupported Vajpayees coalition during his second tenure (1998-99) as a Prime Minister. With a mere 18 members out of total of542 M.P.s in the House (i.e. less than 3.5%), she could manageto dictate terms as per her whims and ultimately also managedto bring about its downfall. The recent mind-boggling Spectrum2G scam of Rs.1.76 lakh crores clearly indicates as to whatextent small / regional parties could dictate terms and extract itspound of flesh to support the coalition government.

(12)


21/76

France is another classic examform of government on party system.system of Govt. and like us hadprocess of unstable governments as

There was also an endless prparties as well as splitting of existingsmaller in size than ours had as me14 political parties and during a 12 y

1958 had as many as 26 differenadoption of the Presidential form ofexactly of the U.S. model, but withthere is not only a stable governmenthe number of parties.

Against the 14 parties existing emajor political parties and even theare divided in two large coalitionsleading to the much-needed bipolariz

This is becoming a nuisance a code

government can be toppled for at le

(13)

le of effect of PresidentialThey had a Parliamentarywitnessed a continuousentioned earlier.

cess of formation of newparties. The country muchtioned earlieras many asar period between 1946

t governments. After thegovernment in 1958, notmany similarities with it,

t but a drastic reduction in

arlier, there are now only 4e 4 parties now in vogueof the left and the righttion.

must be evolved so that no

st a couple of months!


22/76

Enemies Zindab

(The parties fighting against each other with

together after the elections just for the sake of t

The words of Dr. Babasaheb Amto Constituent Assembly in 1947)

1/

2,

today In view of the clashes of cbound to be a plethora of parties an

in India. If this happens, it is possibthe Parliamentary System, Executivan adverse vote in the Legislature.instability of the Executive. For it is tto align and realign themselves atpretty purpose and bring about the dConstant overthrow of the Governanarchy. The American form of exetype of a democratic and responsible

(14)

1

(From the notes provided by Late Shripolitician and former union cabinet minist2

While most of us have regarded Dr. AConstitution, he himself had repudiatepositive words. He told the Rajya Sabhmy friends tell me that I have made theprepared to say that I shall be the firstwant it. It does not suit anybody (System by Arun Shourie, Edition 2007 pDr. Ambedkar lived long enough to wsystem that has thrown up the type of pcouncil of ministers then he would have p

ad!

all their bitterness often comehe loaves and fishes of the office)

edkar (in his Memorandum, almost sound propheticstes and creeds there isgroups in the Legislature

le, nay certain, that underis bound to resign upon

India may suffer from thehe easiest thing for groupsfrequent intervals and forwnfall of the Government.

ment is nothing short ofcutive is an equally goodform of the Government.

himanbhai Mehta, a veteranr)bedkar as the framer of ourthis claim in no uncertainon 2 September 1953. Sir,Constitution. But I am quite

erson to burn it out. I do notSource : The Parliamentary

18). It is nay certain that hadtch the performance of theersons in our legislature andut his thoughts in practice.


23/76

Chapter 3

THE CABINET

Q. How does the Presidential System as adopted in the USAdiffer with our Parliamentary System in the matter of theselection and functioning of Cabinet?

A. Separation of Cabinet from Legislature

There are various types of Presidential system of government.The ideal model is that of the USA where there is a separationof cabinet from the legislature. In some of the Presidential formsof government, the ministers are appointed from amongst themembers of the legislature which is not a desirable model as itfails to provide the required checks on the President or theCabinet from the Legislature (see chapter 5 Checks &Balances).

Well-defined Selection Process

1. There is a well defined procedure for the selection of

Secretaries (the ministers are known as Secretaries in theAmerican System) and other important Administrators inthe Presidential system as adopted in the U.S.A., theselection is generally made by the President from amongstthe highly successful professionals or top intellectuals ofhigh standing in the country. In case, the President wantsto select a Minister from amongst the members of theCongress, then the concerned member has to resign fromthe Congress before joining the cabinet. The practice ofselection of members from outside the Parliament is alsofollowed in France where, like the American system, theministers have to resign their seats in the Parliament.

2. The Senate has been given full powers to investigate into

the credentials of the candidates concerned, which includeinterviews with the candidates, and it is only after receivingthe Senates approval that the President can confirm allmajor appointments including those of the Ministers. Thereare several instances in which the candidates proposed bythe President have been disapproved by the SenateCommittees in which case the President has no choice butto propose an alternative candidate.

(15)


24/76

3. The FBI investigates in confidence the background ofthese candidates and gives a confidential report on them.

4. In the debate that takes place in the matter, everybodyincluding the Members of the Opposition and the mediaplay significant role which brings out all the facets of thecandidates personality including his strong and weakpoints. There is a total time interval of nearly 2 monthsafter the President is elected and his Cabinet is sworn in.

Better Efficiency

As the Ministers are not distracted by the necessity of constantattendance in the legislature and as they are not linked to anyparty politics, the efficiency of administration increases. Theyare also free from the populist compulsions of being required tosocialize with the public for building up a favourable image forthemselves.

Other Examples

It may be mentioned that the practice of selecting ministers fromoutside the Parliament is also adopted in other countries where

Parliamentary system is adopted. For example, in Japan wherethe Diet (Parliament) is supreme, the Prime Minister has anoption to select nearly half the Cabinet ministers from outside.Even the German Constitution allows the Chancellor to selecthis team from anywhere outside the Bundestag (FederalParliament) inspite of adopting a system wherein the Chancellorhas to be elected by the majority of the Bundestag members.

In sharp contrast to the above, our system presents adisconcerting picture as indicated below:

Lack of Professionalism

There is hardly any process for scrutinizing the credentials ofthe candidates for Ministerial berths. Sometimes, the Ministers

themselves are not even aware of the portfolios they are goingto be assigned till a few hours before the swearing-in ceremonytakes place. It is an acknowledged fact that be it any portfolio,either defence, home, external affairs, finance or housing, ourministers are supposed to be fully knowledgeable (Mr.KnowAll) and having the supposed omniscience of handling any

(16)


25/76

portfolio entrusted to them at all times

Political clout main criteria for selectio

The distribution of portfolios amongthe basis of their political clout in ththey happen to enjoy with the PriMinister, as the case may be, ratherexpertise, intellectual attainments a

Arun Shourie, former Union Cabialliance (1999 2004) has observedcompetence is way down on the listPrime Minister has to keep in mind.who from RJD or DMK shall becomethe controllers of that party. So, if oless or an exception, Lalu Yadav wfrom among his MPs who have crimithem to be ministers they are the one

If you have a hold, you

(17)

1(Sardar Swaran Singh, who was a Mi

sometime, had handled so many portfEternal Minister for all the Affairs!)

2 The Parliamentary System 2007 (p. 176)

.1

n

our ministers is made onparty and the confidence

me Minister or the Chiefthan on the basis of theird personal integrity. Shri

et Minister in the NDAIn selecting his ministers

f considerations which theIndeed now the choice ofa minister has to be left tonly to make his own caseere to nominate only thosenal cases pending againsts who will be ministers.

ave a post!

nister for External Affairs forlios that he was nicknamed


26/76

Means to prevent toppling the governThe game of toppling the governmenPrime Minister or the Chief Ministerincreasing the strength of the min justifiable on merit at all. As the lMinistership has often been the badthe reward for merit or efficiencyPalkhivala The difference between

political cunning and a minister of higis the difference between a lightning-

No, not the Assembly Hall this is t

The 91st

amendment to the Constitrestricted the size of the Council of Mi

(18)

1It may be mentioned that those legisl

party who cannot be accommodated in thof Chairmanship of various public corpoWe have even amended the Constitutionthe basic rule of Parliamentary governunder the Crown (except for ministershipof Parliament has no exceptions. ThuParliamentary System, our politicians havtheir vested interest.

2N.A. Palkhivala, We the people Strand

ment

t is often prevented by theby the dubious method ofistry

1which may not be

te M.C. Chagla observede of disloyalty rather than

. In the words of N.A.minister selected for his

h mental and moral calibreug and lightning

2.

he new Cabinet Room!

tion passed in 2003 hasinisters to 15% of the total

ators belonging to the rulinge Cabinet are given the postsrations or similar such posts.to make this easier. In Britainent that any office of profit) disqualifies for memberships, even while adopting thee managed to distort it to suit

ook Stall 1988, p. 45


27/76

number of the legislators in the Assstates, the total number of ministers icase of Central Government, based o543, this number works out to as high aof Manmohan Singhs cabinet is 77).sharp contrast to the US cabinetmembers. Even while adopting the Phave chosen to ignore the fact that thealso restricted to about 20 membe

established in other democracies suConstitution itself has limited the strenmaximum. This restriction is based onstrength allows the Cabinet to workfacilitates discussions and decision mgovernance of the country. UnfortunatCabinets in the various States is deterof political expediency of buying peaceof the highly coveted ministerial bertwithin the ruling party. Prior to the abReform during Kalyan Singhs tenurrecord of 92 member-cabinet.

Ministership, a badge o

(19)

1Venkatachaliah Commission on Constitutionrestrict the cabinet size to 10% of the strengthstates and maximum number of 7 in case of slegislators.

embly1. In case of smallers restricted to 12. Thus, in

our Parliament strength ofs 82. (The present strengthThis unwidely number is inhich consists of only 20rliamentary democracy wesize of cabinet in Britain is

rs, such norms are also

ch as Japan wherein thegth of cabinet to 20 at thethe principle that the smallas a cohesive team and

king leading to the efficientely, in India, the size of the

ined by the considerationsby distributing the largesse

hs amongst the dissidentsvementioned Constitutional, U.P. had established a

disloyalty!

l Reforms had recommended toof the legislature in case of largermaller states having less than 40


28/76


29/76


30/76

No room at the top for top

Weakening of Party-organisation

The system of selecting ministlegislature also deprives the prequired to keep the organizatioirresistible attraction of ministershpersons free to man the party orginstances where politicians havpresidentship of a party in order thas greatly reduced the importanEven the staunch supporters of paof the existence of this great handi

Secondary role for knowledgeabl

It is an established fact that inspitof talented professionals and kno

respective fields, we have not bmaximum extent the talentsdistinguished persons. It is a coprofessionals and experts haveplaying a secondary role as merebooks or members of committeeany significant role in shaping the

(22)

intellectuals!

ers from the members ofrty of competent personsn strong and viable. Theip leaves very few capablenization. There are several

resigned or refused theo become a minister. Thise of the party organization.rliamentary set up will admitcap.

le experts

of possessing a large poolwledgeable experts in their

en able to utilize to theand expertise of suchmon knowledge that suchhad to rest content withadvisers, critics, authors ofwhose reports rarely play

ital policies of the State.


31/76


32/76

Obeying the High Com

Even Britain has now made suitablecomplete system of Department Sunder which 14 Committees have b

various subjects.

As against the above, under our pres

1. An in-depth and detailed exalegislative measure is not genelegislators. On many occasions,through the passage of the legiweightage to its likely repercusthe society at large. There is aparticipation from a large numregard.

2. Rather than merit, the proposemore on the pre-determinedpractice of the parties to issue aand the members are obliged tthe instructions of the party higthe personal views they mayown study and conviction.

(24)

and whip!

changes by setting up alect Committees in 1977en set up for dealing with

nt system,

ination of the proposedrally done by most of ourthere is a tendency to rushislation without giving dueions on the economy andlack of active and seriousber of legislators in this

legislation is voted uponarty lines. It is also awhip on important issues

o vote in accordance withcommand irrespective of

e holding based on their


33/76


34/76


35/76

Q. Since under the US system, the lvests with the Congress and telected, is it not likely that when tdoes not have a majority in the Costalemate between the Presidentlegislative matters?

A. As mentioned earlier, every membefull freedom to vote on any legi

judgement and conscience. On severof the Presidents own political partvarious issues and nothing preventsthe legislation favoured or proposedother hand, many a time, it is tmembers which helps the Presidentparty legislators. If a legislation prodefeated, he is not obliged to resign.

As a measure of checks andgiven the power to veto the legislHouses of Congress, which, in turn,two-thirds majority of the Congress.empowered to call the Congress i

recommend the legislation. Thus,reached where a compromise isCongress and the President. Whileslow, it is more complete and effectiv

President V/S Congres

(27)

egislative authority fullye President is directlye Presidents own party

ngress, there could be aand the Congress on

of the Congress is givenislation according to his

al occasions, the membersy hold different views onthem from voting againstby the President. On the

he support of oppositionmore than that of his ownposed by the President is

alances, the President istion passed by both thecan be over-ridden by aThe President is further

n a special session and

a situation is generallyarrived at between theverall the process is a bit.

s A Delicate Balance!


36/76

Chapter 5

CHECKS & BALANCES

Q. WhatisthepossibilityofPresidentialsystemdegeneratinginto dictatorship?

A. The general misconception about the Presidential system is thefear that it may degenerate into dictatorship. The likelihood of anydemocracy, whether parliamentary or presidential, degeneratinginto dictatorship is dependent on the provision of in-built checksand balances. In a short span of 7 years (1932-1939) during theThird Reichstag in Germany (1920-1939) Hitler could assume allthe powers of a dictator by circumventing the then existingparliamentary democracy. Even in our own Parliamentary system,we had a near dictatorial regime during the emergency rule of lateSmt. Indira Gandhi. The Forty-second Amendment to theConstitution passed during this period was a nearest step todictatorship as it had empowered the Parliament to amend Article368 of the Constitution thereby enabling it to change any part ofthe Constitution which could not be questioned in any Courts on

any ground. Fortunately, this Amendment was repealed duringthe Janata regime.

In a truly democratic Presidential system as adopted by theU.S.A. based on the principle of separation of powers betweenthe executive, legislative and judiciary branches, chances of thesystem degenerating into dictatorship are extremely remote ornone at all as has been evidenced in the 235 years of UShistory inspite of the fact that there have been some verypopular and powerful personalities elected as the President.

Apart from the full legislative authority and power vested inthe Congress in the matter of the confirmation of all majorappointments made by the President, the US Congress hasalso been provided with the following powers which serve as a

check on any excessive exercise of the executive authority bythe powerful President.

1. Investigating Body: Along with the Lower House, theSenate has the power to conduct investigations into agreat variety of matters including the conduct of otherbranches of government and affairs of the nation.Investigations are conducted regularly by the standingcommittees of the lower house and the Senate andsometimes by the special committees also.

(28)


37/76

Underconstant surv

2. Ratification of foreign treaties: T

power of confirming treatieformulates and negotiates treatreaty cannot be operative unlethirds majority of the Senate. T

his own way in the domainsecuring the necessary co-opera

3. Power of Impeachment: The Sepower of impeachment and therthe legislature, judicial or execmighty President if they are founor other high crimes. The impeinitiated in the Lower House andit were a Court. Had Presidenthis role in Watergate scandal, itwould have faced impeachment

4. The War Powers Act: The War

allows the U.S. President toCongressional declaration of wCongress must be informed of tand it also empowers the Congof the troops.

Restriction of Tenure

The restriction on the tenure of officAmerican system has also played a

(29)

illance!

he Senate also shares the. While the Presidenties with other nations, ass it is ratified by a two-hus, no President can go

of foreign affairs withouttion of the Senate.

nate has been granted theeby remove any official intive branch including thed guilty of bribery, treasonachment proceedings arethe Senate proceeds as if

Nixon not resigned due towas almost certain that heproceedings.

owers Act passed in 1973

commit troops without ar but it provides that thehis action within 48 hoursress to order a withdrawal

e for the President in theimportant role. Under the


38/76

22nd

amendment to the U.S. ConstiPresident is allowed to continue interms. Such restriction also applGovernor in most of the States. TillRoosevelt in 1932, a tradition wPresidents followed the example sethe first President of the nation. Inpopular, Washington voluntarily refu

for the 3

rd

term as he firmly beliecorrupts absolutely and was keetradition for his successors to follow.when upon completion of Rooseveltcrisis of 2

ndWorld War necessitat

highest calibre which Roosevelt hadupon completion of his 3

rdtenure, t

the war had not ended and he was elHowever, upon his death in 1946 asthe overwhelming public opinion wconstitutional amendment so as to pfollow Roosevelts example. Such athe French system where the tenureyears as against 4 years for the U.S.

No More!

1It was during the midst of great depression w

his first tenure in 1932. His exemplary leadU.S.A. to come out of this severe crisis.2

Since publication of my first book on the submany intellectuals & prominent persons from vEx-Chief Minister of a prominent State & formehad strong reservations for Presidential Syspros and cons of both the systems with anendorsed that a truly democratic Presidential Sinterest of the country.

ution passed in 1948, noOffice for more than two

lies to the office of thethe election of Franklin D.as followed whereby allt by George Washington,spite of being immenselysed to accept nomination

ved that absolute powerto establish a healthyThis tradition was broken

s 2nd

tenure in 1940, thed to have leadership ofprovided

1. Even in 1944,

e crisis had continued asected for a record 4

thtime.

the tradition was broken,nt in favour of having a

revent future Presidents torestriction is not found inof President is also for 6

President.

hen Roosevelt assumed office forrship played a vital role for the

ject in 1978, I have come acrossarious walks of life which includer Chief Justice of India who haveem. After having discussed theopen mind, they wholeheartedlyystem will certainly be in the best


39/76

Presidential System in other countries

Apart from the U.S.A. & France the Presidential system ofgovernment has been in existence in many other countries suchas Mexico, several countries in Latin America, Indonesia, SriLanka, Philippines, South Korea and many African countries.However, in the absence of the required checks and balances,the political systems in some of them are leaning towards

dictatorship. Thus, for example, in Mexico, a presidentialsystem has been adopted under which the president after beingelected, enjoys enormous powers. The laws passed by himcannot be challenged in the court of law or vetoed by theSenate. The only redeeming feature in this respect is the banon the President against contesting for the second term. Aleading Mexican politician has nicknamed their President as"Semi-King" and "Semi-Pope" enjoying a rule for six years.Similarly, in Sri Lanka, the executive (the cabinet) is constitutedfrom amongst the members of the legislature and is, therefore,subservient to the latter. Such a legislature cannot provide therequired check on the President and the cabinet would also bedeprived of the services of top professionals and talentedexperts which is not the case in the model adopted by the

U.S.A. or France.While comparing the French and the American model, the

American system would be more suitable having regard to thefollowing :

1. In certain respects the French President has even morepowers than his American counterpart. As mentionedabove, the French President has the power to dissolve theParliament which is not the case in the American system.This would have dangerous repercussions.

2. The tenure of French President is for 6 years whereas theAmerican President has a tenure of 4 years. The FrenchPresident has also no restriction of tenure in that he can beelected any number of times unlike his Americancounterpart who cannot continue for more than 2 terms i.e.for a maximum period of 8 years.

There are also provisions in the French system forrecourse to referendum in certain specific legislative areaswhich may not be possible for a large country like ours.

(31)


40/76

Q. What will be the impact of PreFederal character of our Constituti

A. The system of direct election of exlevel and giving them the security oexecutive authority and freedom wilfederal character of the Constitution.contrast to our present system whereoccasions have to look to Delhi D

approval even in regard to mattersministers in their cabinet. In case theythat of the Prime Minister, they have tobooks of the Delhi Durbar all the tileadership would be ever ready to repopportunity arises. In case they belthere are several instances of theirPresident at an opportune time.

Pleasing the Delhi

The direct election of the Chief Execis done in the case of the Governors

security of tenure and providingauthority in the administration ofautomatically include the freedomMinisters and other administrators aprevent the Central leadership (thmembers of his team) from influencadministration of the state. This wassert their legitimate rights vis--vis

(32)

idential system on then?

ecutive head at the Statef tenure and the requisitell certainly strengthen theThis would stand in sharpur Chief Ministers on manyurbar for guidance and

like the confirmation of thebelong to the same party asperforce remain in the goode, failing which the centrallace them as and when anng to the opposition partybeing dismissed by the

urbar!

tives at the State level (asin the U.S.A.) with the full

them with freedom andthe State (which wouldto select, their team ofs per their choice) would

Prime Minister and theing or interfering with theould enable the States tohe Central Government.


41/76


42/76

elected as the Chief Minister or even a Prime Minister is muchmore under our present system than under the Presidentialsystem. Even assuming hypothetically that a person with adubious background by any remote chance gets elected asGovernor or President, then the Senate has all the powers tocheck him and, if necessary, even to remove him by initiatingimpeachment proceedings if he is found to be guilty of bribery,treason or high crimes.

Further, as discussed earlier, the authority to confirm allthe major appointments including the ministers would vest withthe Senate. It may be mentioned that in the case of PresidentNixon, who was almost sure to be impeached because of hisnear criminal role in the Watergate scandal, nothing adversewas proved against any of the members of his cabinet. In fact,the performance of his team was as good as that of any otherPresidential cabinet.

As regards the inefficiency aspect, it has been found in theU.S.A. that even in such cases, the calibre of the professionalcadre of the cabinet members has played an important role tocover up the shortcomings of the President.

Q. What is the role of judiciary in the Presidential Democracy

and how does it compare with our current system?

A. The role of judiciary in a truly democratic system would be toexercise a check both on the executive and the legislature andalso to ensure that the fundamental rights guaranteed to thepeople in the Constitution are zealously safeguarded withoutany encroachment from the executive or the legislature.

Under the US system, the President has the power toappoint all the Federal judges with the advice and consent ofthe Senate. However, the judges can be removed only byrecourse to impeachment.

Although we have opted for the British system for thefunctioning of the Government, the practice of judicial review ofthe Acts passed by the Parliament is similar to that of theAmerican pattern. In England, as the Parliament has beenconsidered supreme, the Acts passed by the Parliament arenot allowed to be challenged in the Courts. Inspite of this, theCourts do have powers to review the Acts passed by the localor lower level legislatures.

The principle of judicial review i.e. the power of SupremeCourt to review the laws passed by the legislature or to decidewhether any acts performed by the executive are in conformity

(34)


43/76

with the Constitution, has played a very important role inproviding checks and balances in the American political system.In the last 235 years, as many as 80 legislations passed by theCongress have been declared as unconstitutional by theSupreme Court, whereas, at the states level, the number ofsuch Acts having been declared as unconstitutional has beenmany more. In fact, during President Roosevelts era as manyas 11 legislations passed by his government were struck down

by the Supreme Court. This was despite the fact that Rooseveltwas among the most powerful Presidents.The 24

thConstitution Amendment (passed in 1971) and

the 42nd

Constitution Amendment (passed in 1976) have beenthe most controversial of all the amendments. The 24

th

Constitution Amendment enabled the Parliament to amend anypart of the Constitution including the Fundamental Rights. ThisAmendment sought to introduce an additional provision in theArticle 368, viz. Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,Parliament may, in the exercise of its constituent power, amendby way of addition, variation or repeal any provision of thisConstitution in accordance with the procedure laid down in thisArticle.

The 24th

Constitutional Amendment was challenged in the

famous Kesavananda Bharati V/S. State of Kerala case in theSupreme Court in 1972. Nine of the thirteen judges upheld theParliaments right to amend the Constitution but not its basicstructure. Later on, during the emergency in 1976, the 42

nd

Constitution Amendment Act tried to reinstate the supremacy ofParliament. The said amendment of Article 368 virtuallygranted unrestricted power to Parliament including suppressionof fundamental rights. As so amended, the said Article, interalia, provides that No amendment of this Constitution (includingthe provisions of Part III) made or purporting to have beenmade under this Article (whether before or after thecommencement of the 42

ndConstitution Amendment Act, 1976)

shall be called in question in any court on any ground. This

42nd

Amendment was repealed by the Janata Government bypassing the 43

rdand 44

thAmendments of the Constitution.

It is an admitted fact that in our country as the executive(Cabinet) forms part of the legislature, on many occasionsespecially when the ruling party has a large majority, thelegislature has not been able to provide a required check on theexecutive and the people have more often looked to thejudiciary to check any excesses committed by the executive andthe legislature.

(35)


44/76


45/76


46/76

Chapter 6

CORRUPTI

Q. Corruption has been among ourincreasing by leaps and bounds.the people has been completely

system on account of such mSpectrum 2G, Common Wealth Gscandals etc. How does thecompare with our present system i

A. While no system can be fool-proochances of corruption are minimizsystem for the following reasons:-

1. A lot more scrutiny is carried outother top administrators as adoptappointment is finalised. The inteministers and other top administthoroughly investigated beforeh

National level) or the Governor (ato induct a controversial personcabinet simply because of his clouearlier, various agencies includinof the Senate, the F.B.I., and, ofactive role in the scrutiny of the pr

A Farcical Exer

(38)

ON

biggest problems. It isIn fact, the very faith ofshaken in the political

ind-boggling scams asames, Land and MiningPresidential democracyn this regards?

vis--vis corruption, thed under the Presidential

or the post of ministers anded in the USA before theirgrity and honesty of therators to be appointed isnd and the President (at

t State level) need not haveith a dubious record in thet in the party. As mentioned

the concerned committeecourse, the media play anspective candidates.

ise!


47/76

2. In such a system, the Executive Head of the Government(President at National level or the Governor at State level)has all the freedom to institute an enquiry into the chargesof corruption against his cabinet members as and whennecessary as he would not have any fear of causing anydamage to his own security of tenure. Under our presentsystem on most occasions the Prime Minister / the ChiefMinister is unwilling to set up such an enquiry against the

corrupt minister lest it may displease the legislators, whoare owing allegiance to or are under the influence of theconcerned corrupt minister. In case of coalition government(which is now almost a norm at the centre and most of thestates) it is virtually impossible to initiate any action againstthe concerned minister/s nominated by the party/partiesforming a coalition as the very survival of the governmentwould be at stake. Besides unlike our scenario theMembers of Congress in the USA have no axe to grind inexposing the corrupt ministers as they do not form a part ofthe cabinet and there is no nexus between the two

1. Even

Senators from Presidents own party are not reluctant toexpose the corrupt minister unlike in our system where theruling party has always shown a tendency to drag on the

ministerial scandals for the reasons best known to all of us.A survey of enquiries held in our country in the last 60

years shows that it was only when the public outcry wastoo loud and irrepressible that the enquiries were institutedby the Prime Minister or the Chief Ministers concernedagainst the Ministers of their own party and even in suchcases the Prime Minister or the Chief Ministers concernedconducted themselves in a highly partisan manner. Inalmost all the cases right from the Jeeps Scandal wayback in 1948 (in which V.K. Krishna Menon was involved)till the latest Spectrum 2G and Karnataka land-minesscandals, the government in power has been reluctant toinstitute enquiries against delinquent ministers. In many

cases, it was only when the opposition had come to poweror Supreme Court gave directions that the enquiries wereset in motion.

(39)

1Late Shri Chimanbhai Mehta, a veteran politician & former Union

Cabinet Minister (1989-90) who had taken active part in initiatingcampaign against corruption in nineties had come to a firm conclusionthat a truly democratic Presidential system wherein ministers will beinducted from outside the parliament will be lot more effective incombating corruption than our present political system.


48/76


49/76

To cite few examples the agency gave a clean chit toCongress politician Jagdish Tytler in the 1984 anti-sikh riotscase and withdrew a red-corner notice against Bofors scandalaccused Ottavio Quattrocchi. It abandoned years of enquiry andallowed the United Progressive Alliance government tomanipulate it to favour railway minister Laloo Prasad andwife Rabri Devi in a case of disproportionate assets. It was toldby the Supreme Court in March 2007 to probe an allegation of

disproportionate assets of Mulayam Singh Yadav. In October, itclaimed to have sufficient evidence to book him but in July2008 the agency changed its stance after the turn of eventsin Parliament when the Left Parties withdrew support over thenuclear deal. The Samajwadi Party led by Mulayam Singhsupported the congress in winning over the No Confidencemotion on the Civil Nuclear deal. Soon after on December 5,2008 the agency moved the Supreme Court to withdraw theapplication to register a case against Yadav. Although the flipflop drew adverse remarks from Justice Altamas Kabir andJustice Cyriac Joseph who remarked that the agency was notacting independently but was acting on behalf of the CentralGovernment. As things turned sour before the Lok Sabhaelections of 2009 between the Congress and Mulayam Singh

regarding distribution of seats in U.P. the agency made anotherU turn stating that it stands by its recommendation of October2007 that a disproportionate assets case is made out againstMulayam

1/

2virtually making a laughing stock of itself.

Lokpal Bill

The rampant and widespread corruption which has led to mind-boggling scams such as Spectrum 2G, Commonwealth Gamesand several others followed by Annajis crusade againstcorruption has provided the necessary spark for a fire whichwas waiting to be ignited. After having been stalled for 60 years,the government is now under tremendous pressure for

enactment of Lokpal Bill under which Lokpal an independentauthority will be fully empowered to initiate investigationand prosecution against any bureaucrat or legislator includingall Ministers, Chief Ministers and Prime Minister for corruptioncharges without any interference or requirement of any sanction

(41)

1. Source: DNA Newspaper dated May 4, 2009 with inputs by the author.

2 The way it has functioned in many such cases it has been nicknamed,Collaborating (with the ruling party) Bureau of Investigations.


50/76

from the government. This also includes the provision to haveCBI or CVC merge with the Lokpal. It is also insisted to includeall the categories of public servants including the lowest level.The higher judiciary is also proposed to be included within itspurview.

It is a common perception that under our present systemwhenever there is any corruption scam involving politicians, allthe enquiries and investigations appear to be a mere eye wash.

This has led to complete loss of faith of the people in thepresent system. Under the circumstances, the appointment ofLokpal, as an independent authority, with requisite powers willcertainly be a welcome relief. However, in the euphoriagenerated following Annajis relentless campaign and the fastundertaken by him, we must not forget that the appointment ofLokpal cannot be the panacea for eradicating corruption. Themost effective and the logical way to eradicate / minimizecorruption would be to have a revamp of the system whichwould ensure appointment of honest and capable people at toplevel i.e. at Ministerial level in the first place with in-built checksand balances in the system itself and Lokpal should only be anadditional check and balance mechanism as a final recourse

1.

The demand of merging CBI and CVC into Lokpal will

tremendously include the workload of Lokpal. It would beadvisable to have CBI or CVC under the purview of Lokpalrather than merging with the Lokpal. As regards investigationagainst public servant is concerned, it would be appropriate tohave Deputy Secretary and higher category Officers coveredunder Lokpal Bill rather tha54n include all categories.Regarding demand to bring higher judiciary under the Lokpal, itis suggested to have National Judicial Commission empoweredto try an errant judge (see Chapter 5 hecks and Balances -Judicial Reforms) rather than putting judiciary under the Lokpal.

One of the major sources of corruption is ElectionCampaign Finance and it is suggested to provide StateContribution / Funding to recognized political parties towards

election expenses as implemented in several counties tominimize this evil (see Chapter 8 Electoral Reforms where thistopic is discussed).

(42)

1An honest bureaucrat or a politician is almost becoming an extinct

species. In a scenario such as this which may involve almost entirebureaucracy and majority of M.P.s., M.L.A.s and Ministers to establishan administrative cum legal set-up for investigation & prosecutionwould be a colossal task and difficult to manage.


51/76

Chapter 7

PROMOTION OF LEADERSHIP QUALITIES

Q. What will be the effect of the Presidential democracy inpromoting the leadership qualities?

A. One important aspect of the Presidential system which needs tobe stressed is its healthy and beneficial effect on the promotionof leadership qualities as a whole. It has been emphasizedtime and again that the quality of leadership in our country hasbeen steadily deteriorating. Isnt it a bit surprising and intriguingto find that a country which could produce in the pre-Independence era a galaxy of such dedicated, sincere andhighly respected leaders as Dadabhoy Naoroji, MahatmaGandhi, Sardar Patel, Subhash Chandra Bose, JawaharlalNehru, Lala Lajpat Rai, Lokmanya Tilak, Gopalkrishna Gokhale,Jayprakash Narayan, Rajaji and several others, has been bereftof leadership of matching calibre in the present times? This isdespite the fact that we have achieved a higher percentage ofliteracy and the Press and other media have become muchmore powerful while we have also a large educated electorate,as compared to the position in the pre-Independence era.

It may be argued that in the pre-Independence days, therewas a general spirit of patriotism and we were fighting acommon, alien enemy, which is not the situation now. Whilethis argument can hold ground to some extent, it cannot providethe full answer.

City Level

Under our current system, Mayors of our large cities mainly actas mere show-pieces not having the requisite executiveauthority and any wider popular backing. In fact, on most

occasions, citizens in our large metropolitan cities are not evenfamiliar with the names of the mayors elected.The direct election of a mayor for a fixed tenure and

providing him with wide executive powers (with the necessarychecks and balances exercised by the municipal councillors)would go a long way in attracting better personalities for theelective office as is the case in several cities in the U.S.A. In theprocess, such a system is apt to bring about a better calibre ofleadership which would, in due course of time, be groomed forhigher responsible elective positions.

(43)


52/76

The Mayor A Mere s

In Germany also, the Mayor, welected directly by the people. Forhave two votes, one for the electionfor the election of the members of the

Mayoral Go-Ro

(44)

ow Piece!

o is the effective head, isthis purpose, the citizensf the Mayor and the othercity parliament.

nd


53/76

In a semi-literate country like India, the large metropolitancities consisting of better educated and enlightened citizens arelikely to provide appropriate environment for promoting highercaliber of leadership. However, our present system offunctioning of municipal bodies, which provides for the electionof mere show-piece mayors for a short period without any realexecutive powers, does not create the conducive environmentfor the development of effective leadership qualities. Even a

leading metropolitan city like Mumbai having a population ofover fourteen million cannot boast of a single person with amass backing. Thus, apart from other factors, our presentsystem of local administration has played its contributory role increating such a pathetic scenario.

State level

Because of the security of their tenure and the scope providedby the system to enable them to assert their rights effectively,the Governors at the State level in the Presidential System arealso able to develop their own personalities without any fear orpressure from the President or other federal leaders. In sharp

contrast to the above, our Chief Ministers very often fail topromote a strong middle-level leadership because of thedrawbacks of the system. More often, they are busy strugglingfor their very survival and are under the constant threat eitherfrom the influential rivals from within their own party or themembers of the opposition if the ruling party or the coalition towhich they belong has only a slender majority. In case theybelong to the same party as that of the Prime Minister, theyhave to perforce remain in the good books of the "DelhiDurbar"all the time, failing which the central leadership would be everready to replace them as and when an opportunity arises.

Effect of Fixed Tenure

The effect of fixing a maximum ceiling on the tenure in the caseof the directly elected Chief Executive not exceeding two termshas also a beneficial effect on the promotion of leadershipqualities for the party as well as the nation. As mentioned inchapter 6 on Checks and Balances, the President under theU.S. Constitution is allowed to hold office for a maximum periodof two terms. (In some of the states in the U.S.A., thisstipulation also applies to the election of governors).

(45)


54/76

Looking to Delhi Durbar

This provision implies that the natiadvance to face the situation when tto complete his second term. At tihimself plays a constructive role andsupport in favour of grooming thcandidate.

As against this, under our c

Minister or the Chief Minister can coindefinite period. There is, therefore,people or the ruling party or the incuMinister himself in looking for anyreplace them. On the contrary, theysubconsciously) to discourage ssuccessor, with a view to eliminatingto safeguard his own position sopower as long as possible.

(46)

or Survival!

on prepares itself well ine President would be duees, the retiring President

lends his active and moralprospective presidential

rrent set up, the Prime

ntinue to hold office for anlittle interest shown by thebent Prime Minister/Chieffresh talent or blood to

are prone (consciously orooth selection of their

the potential rivals in orderas to facilitate his stay in


55/76


56/76

No Ticket No

we hold that the democracy is a syspeople and by the people, then therereally democratic than by providingpeople to participate in the proccandidates. The party candidates aof the popular votes secured by the

the Primaries are held to ascertcandidates.

It was the desire to free the vocorrupt party bosses that had led topopular mode of selection. ThePrimaries in the USA. They are custclosed or blanket Primaries. A closexclude all the voters who are not adUnder this system, one must declarethat one is a registered member of tPrimary one wishes to vote. AboutPrimaries. In an open Primary,participate and the voters choice of

recorded. Under this system, one cathe voting booth on the election dPrimary one wishes to participate.partys Primary ballot, only one vote c

In the blanket Primary (usedAlaska), the voter may choose officprimary he or she votes in. Thus, inmarks a ballot that contains thenomination of all the parties.

(48)

ap!

tem of the people, for theis no other way to make it

an opportunity to the veryess of selection of thee nominated on the basis. These elections called

in the popularity of the

er from the domination ofthe Primaries becoming are are various forms ofomarily classified as open,d Primary is supposed toherents of the given party.several weeks in advance,he political party in whose

forty States have closedany registered voter canballot is neither known nor

n decide when one entersy as to in which partysWhile one is given everyan be exercised.only in Washington ande by office, which partysthe voting booth, the voternames of candidates for


57/76

The ballot in the Primary is printcarries the names of all those who has candidates. It is administered byconduct the election according to lathe cost of administering the primaryof general elections, the voting is sthe party is secret, every party is opePrimary is almost a mini-election.

Q. State contribution/funding to retowards election campaign expensas one of the major electoral reimplemented in many countries. Wthis regards?

A. Election Campaign Finance :

This has been one of the biggest sForum strongly suggests State fundiThe principle of state support/fundingmany democratic countries suchCanada, U.S.A etc. This prevents tparties / contestants to lean heavily

interest groups, for providing the nehowsoever dubious and suspect theThis reliance on fat cats regardlessi.e. whether they wear the respectaindustrialists or criminals and anti-sosupport has the effect of grossly corr

Reliance on fat c

(49)

d at the State expense. Itave been properly enteredpersons, who are sworn to. Government funds payelections. As in the casecret. While the choice ofn to each voter. Thus, the

ognize political partieses have been suggestedorms. It has also beenhat are Forums views in

urces of corruption. Theng in a regulated manner.has been implemented inas Germany, Australia,e reliance of the politicaln the wealthy donors and

cessary financial support,sources of money may be.f the genre they belong toility garb of businessmen,cial elements for financialpting the election process.

ats!


58/76

The wealthy donors and special interest groups are ever willingto provide the necessary financial assistance to those promisingcandidates, who, they feel, would be agreeable to espouse theirself-serving causes on being elected. The acceptance of thelarge amounts of money from such sources inevitably resultsin the political parties and candidates becoming obliged to themto the detriment of the larger national interests. Among all, theGerman example seems to be an ideal one. The law on

election funding provides for reimbursement of electionexpenses by the state in a regulated manner to political parties.An amount of Euro 0.85 (Rs.56.00) per valid vote up to a limit of4 Million votes and Euro 0.70 (Rs.46.00) is earmarked for everyadditional vote for each person entitled to vote. This amount isdistributed in proportion to the number of votes obtained by theparties in the previous elections. A minimum of 5% of votes isrequired by the parties for being eligible for this funding.

U.S. example :1

In the US Presidential elections, the nominees of major parties(those that have received 25% or more of popular votes in thepreceding Presidential election) are eligible to receive full public

funds to finance their election campaigns. In 2004 elections,this figure amounted to $ 74.6 million for the funds of each ofthe two candidates of major parties. Candidates of minor parties(those receiving between 5 per cent and 25 per cent of thevotes in the previous election) are also eligible to receive partialpublic financing. Further, candidates of parties which areineligible to receive public financing on the basis of votesreceived by them in previous elections can be atleast partiallybe reimbursed after the current election if they receive atleast 5per cent of the votes in the current election in question. Theavailability of public funds enable the candidates to presentthemselves and their policies to the electorate so as to makethe elections more competitive. It will also minimize the need

for donation from wealthy donors and interest groups, whichconstitute a fertile source of corruption in the body politic.

General election candidates, who accept public financing,may not accept private contributions to further their electioncampaigns, although they may accept private contributions upto

(50)

1Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia on the Website.


59/76

the specified limits, in order to help them defray the costs ofcomplying with the election laws.

It may be mentioned that presently under MPLADS(Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme)funding in our country, each M.P. (both Lok Sabha & RajyaSabha) has been provided a funding of Rupees Five Crores perannum to be spent in his constituency as per his discretion. Thisamount is grossly misused. Based on the total strength of 543MPs for Lok Sabha and 240 MPs for Rajya Sabha, it works out to atotal of Rs.20775 crores.1 This huge amount can as well be utilisedfor contribution as state funding2 to recognized political partiessubject to these political parties being regulated by enactment of asuitable Law as mentioned. The average contribution of statefunding per Lok Sabha seat will work out to Rs. 38.25 croresadequate by any standards to take care of legitimate electioncampaign expenses for all recognized political parties. This amountcan be divided between State Legislative elections and LokSabha elections. Part of it could also be apportioned formeeting expenses to be incurred by the State for holdingprimary elections for nomination of candidates by the parties.

Q. One of the major electoral reforms being discussed is the

system of Proportional Representation. What is Forumsstand on this?

A. Many European countries including our neighbour Sri Lankahave adopted the system of Proportional Representation toavoid the distortion of results witnessed in the first past the postsystem prevalent in our country. On most occasions ourpresent system does not truly reflect the popularity enjoyed bythe political parties and on several occasions the seats securedby the parties are widely disproportionate to the percentage of

(51)

1

It may be mentioned that apart from MPLADS funding, there is alsoMLALAD (MLA Local Area Development) funding available in most ofthe States. Even this funding is also mis-used and the amountdisbursed is Rupees One Crore per annum per constituency.2 In view of its gross misuse, L.K. Advani while he was leader of

Opposition had himself made this suggestion for utilization of this fundtowards the state funding of elections in 2005. Apart from Advani,Second Administrative Reforms Commission and also CAGE in itsreport in August 2010, National Commission for Constitutional Reformsand prominent political leaders including Sonia Gandhi have allstrongly mentioned about abolishing this scheme in view of grossmisappropriation of the funds.


60/76

votes polled by them. The mostdistortion was witnessed in 1991 Tawhen AIDMK secured 44.4 votes butout of total of 232 seats i.e. 70.2%.win only one seat though it securnational level, in 1984 elections (assassination) the Congress Partmanaged to secure 401 seats out of

79% against 49.2% votes cast inexamples can be cited of gross voteHowever, allocating the seats

percentage of votes polled by the parwherein many of the constituencierepresentative in the legislature. In oand also remove the anomaly assystem, the introduction of mixed proadopted in Germany is recommendentitle a voter two votes, one for thesecond part for the individual candifind the individual candidates of acredentials whereas they may prefer toideological reasons). In such a sys

legislature are apportioned to the paof votes polled by them and remainindividual candidates based on highby the candidate as per our presenwould also prevent distortion to a larg

Inequitable relationship between th

and the share of s

(52)

striking example of thisilnadu Assembly electionsmanaged to get 163 seatss against this, DMK couldd 21.4 percent votes. Atfollowing Indira Gandhisy led by Rajiv Gandhi508 contested by them i.e.

their favour. Many sucheat distortion.purely on the basis of

ties may lead to a situationmay not have a direct

rder to avoid this situationwitnessed in our presentportional representation asd. Such a system wouldhoice of the party and theates. (Many times, votersparticular party has betterchoose different party fortem 50% of the seats in

rties based on percentageing 50% are allocated forst number of votes polledt system. Such a systeme extent in the end-results

partys share of votes

ats !


61/76

of the polls as reflected in our present system. This would alsoresult in all constituencies being represented in the legislature.We can consider Rajya Sabha members being nominated bythe Parties based on the percentage of votes polled by them inthe State elections. It is necessary to have the list of candidatespublished by the party before the elections in order ofpreference for being eligible under percentage quota. This willalso enable the electorate to judge the merits of candidates

proposed by the party for nomination beforehand. It will alsoenable the top party leaders to be nominated directly and thusprovide an opportunity to have a wider perspective as they willnot represent a particular constituency.

Q. What other changes the Forum suggest in the US model tosuit our country?

A. In the U.S.A. the ministers are not allowed to attend theParliament. We can allow the ministers to attend both thehouses and allow them to be heard at their request as permittedin the French system of Presidential democracy. We canrestrict question-answer session to be taken up by the M.P.s inthe relevant committee meetings where the concerned minister

may be allowed to remain present if necessary. (Our presentsystem of having question-answer session open for allmembers of Parliament results in so much wastage of time ofentire parliament). (Every minute of time wasted in the Parliamentcosts the nation a staggering Rs.26035/- per minute)

1.

We must also include the Law on Political Parties which isan important electoral reform. In this connection, a study of theposition prevailing in the various democratic countries revealsthat the Law on Political Parties enacted by the FederalRepublic of Germany in July, 1967 contains many noteworthyprovisions aimed at regulating the conduct of political parties inthat country. The law makes all political parties accountable forsource of funds and assets and mandatory to publish auditedaccounts every year. It also ensures among other things thatthe internal organization of party must confirm to democraticprinciples. Presently, we do not have any legal provisions castingany obligation on the political parties to render public account ofthe origin of the funds received by them from diversesources, as a result of which lot of corrupt practices and abuseof money have crept in the functioning of the political parties.

(53)

1Based on Citizens Report on Government & Development 2008.


62/76


63/76

the calibre of the rulers and their performance.If the rulers are inefficient or corrupt and not able to

perform, it would adversely affect the morale and quality of lifeof all the citizens and the progress of the country would suffer.The present system has also undoubtedly deprived the nationof services of talented people to participate in decision makingprocess at highest level living it to the whims and fancies of thepoliticians. The rampant corruption at highest level among

politicians has had a cascading effect on entire administration.Large majority of bureaucrats are even ready and willing tooblige the politicians and in the process it is the common manwho is the sufferer. The people always look to the characterand integrity of the rulers as this generally sets the example forall others to follow. Over a period of time, the change of systemis bound to show a substantial and qualitative change in thegovernance also minimizing the scope for corruption.

Q. How will it be possible to bring about the required changefrom the present Parliamentary System to the Presidentialform of government?

A. It would be possible to bring about such a change by means ofa valid amendment to the Article 368 of the Constitution under

category two which would require two-thirds majority of themembers of Parliament since it does not involve any alterationto the basic structure of the Constitution as regards theguarantee to the fundamental rights and the independence ofthe judiciary. However, we must accept the fact that any suchattempt would be staunchly resisted by our present politicianswho have developed a vested interest in the continuance of thepresent system. The proposed alternative of a presidentialdemocracy with separation of cabinet from the legislature woulddeprive them of coveted ministerial berths and other offices ofprofit to which they have been accustomed.

To bring about the required change would need massiveawareness campaign to convince all sections of society that a

truly democratic presidential system with necessary checks andbalances is in the best interest of the country.

Q. Is it necessary to have a registered political party to achievethe goal?

A. 1. The author along with Shri Chimanbhai Mehta and othershad founded an NGO National Forum For PresidentialDemocracy in late 90s. Over a period of time, it was felt that

(55)


64/76

unless a nationwide mass awareness campaign is launched, itwill be difficult to bring out the required change. Having apolitical party with the manifesto for a truly democraticPresidential System will ultimately lead to building up anorganization with an established identity.

2. For a Political Party registered u/s. 29 A of theRepresentation of the Peoples Act 1951, Individual / Companydonations are fully exempted u/s. 80 GGC of I.T. Act and u/s.

80 GGB of I.T. Act. respectively. This would enable to mobilizethe required funds necessary for a nation wide mass campaign.

3. The membership of a party gives commitment to anindividual to work for a cause.

4. The following chart will show as to how by joining handsand even with small commitment the movement can growexponentially. Starting from a base of 500 Active members andwith commitment from each Active member to enroll 10 Primarymembers and 2 Active members every 12 months in a 3 yearperiod, the Membership of the Party could grow as under :-

Period Active Primary

1 year 1500 150002 years 4500 450003 years 13500 135000

If we are able to launch a movement in all major cities with apopulation of over one million, we can end up with a wide basewhich can pose a challenge to all political parties to considerour agenda seriously and it would be possible to face theelections also in due course.

Q. What is the future action plan of Forum?

A. The Forum aims to launch a massive awareness campaignabout the necessity of a truly democratic presidential system of

democracy in the best interest of the country simultaneouslyfollowed by enrollment of as many active & primary members aspossible. The immediate target would be to enroll atleast 1% ofthe registered voters as Primary Members in as many LokSabha constituencies as possible. When this target is achieved,the members of the concerned constituencies will beencouraged to nominate a candidate for election to Lok Sabhaor State Legislative Assembly.

(56)

Documents

Presidential Democracy - The Need of the Hour