28 July 2020, NIICE Commentary 5697
Prakash Shah
Indian Express carried a write-up by Shashi Tharoor, the former Minister of State, stating that ‘the Parliamentary system we borrowed from the British has not worked in Indian conditions. It is time to demand a change’. His observation indicates his belief that the Indian style of Parliamentary system is not the only weapon of democracy. This article considers Presidential system of democracy and evaluates the option for India.
Tharoor pointed towards the politics in states like Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, and described it as “horse trading of MLAs to switch allegiance for power”. Comparing the present scenario to the time immediately after independence, India under Jawaharlal Nehru balanced the political system with the need of the country. Prime Minister Nehru’s policies like nationalising major industries like steel, iron ore, railways, airlines, drugs and pharmaceuticals, and so on, in the economic field, and the decision on Kashmir in the political field without consulting other leaders hinted dictatorial tendencies. However, he made sure that the process of modernisation accelerated in the newly independent India. However, it is not entirely true for the current leadership.
Reasons for favouring a Presidential System in India
Despite the popularity of Prime Minister Modi and his policies, the Indian state of economy as well as polity does not look optimistic with respect to the democratic values. The following reasons indicate that it is time to opt for an alternate political system:
- The lack of a procedure through which the Chief Executive of the country could be elected instead of choosing a political party makes the process tricky. While the people choose the political party, there is no provision to select the leader of the state.
- The cabinet elected to work on different portfolios is chosen from the Members of Parliament instead of the area of expertise or voting.
- The criminal records against more than a third of the Members of Parliament have resulted in increasing swindling and felonies. In fact, a majority of the leaders became MPs because of their influence in the majority political party.
- The Indian Parliamentary system effectively eliminates the best people in corporate sectors, think tanks, NGOs and civilian institutions like themselves, on the ground that they are not Members of Parliament. The result is that the Prime Minister first names the Cabinet on the basis of parochialism, caste, sex, or other reasons, and after having selected the Cabinet Ministers, gives them portfolios which in many cases have no relation between the appointee and the job they have to do.
- For the first time in the history, the Indian Foreign Minister is a retired foreign service official with experience in the field. Many developing countries appoint their retired senior Army people as Defense Minister, who know the in and out of the field with first-hand experience. In the current times, it is imperative that people with relevant experience are chosen for senior posts.
- Another issue is the lack of any restriction on the number of working days for the Parliamentarians in a year. As a result, for each Parliamentary session, the boycott generated, mainly by the opposition parties, ends up in adjournment in the houses and most of the legislation is then created on the basis of public protest, which the political parties are able to generate.
- Unlike the Parliamentary Democracy, the Presidential System does not put the onus on the party members for the tenure to finish smoothly. There is less scope of dissolution of the government in the Presidential system due to the fixed terms known in advance.
In light of all the above characteristics, a Presidential System will suit India more. Tharoor explicitly wrote “The disrepute into which the political process has fallen in India, and the widespread cynicism about the motives of our politicians can be traced directly to the workings (or non-workings) of the Parliamentary system”, which was adopted from the British colonialists. It is time to let that go.
