Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Does India need Presidential form of government?

The desperation and power hunger thickened the political matrix in India where ideologies and commitment are fast loosing their places. Just about 15 days before a new dispensation would take charge two national parties and about half-a-dozen regional satraps has broken the shell to woo the potential gainers.

In the given circumstances where party and group-based ideology and commitment weakened considerably the Presidential form of government seems ideal.

Everyone is wooing everyone. Manifestoes calling for more or less the same thing and when it comes to forming a government plenty of compromises are done. Whoever has the numbers are adjusted whatever the cost maybe. Pre-poll agenda and commitments to the people find no place in the post-poll arrangements.

"We have had many kinds of government in Delhi since 1952, from predictable to stable to ideological to accidental to opportunistic. The next one may be safely labeled a patchwork. It will be a quilt in which each patch struggles for more space than it has been allotted by hasty needlework," MJ Akbar wrote in the Times of India.
Scepticism and fear of switching over to a new system prevents ideas to take shape. We tend to believe that there is no place of innovation to take on the unforeseen problems propped up.

Speaking in the 73rd conference of Presiding Officers of Legislative Bodies in India last year, Lok Sabha speaker Somnath Chatterjee said the Presidential form of government would be catastrophic for the country. “There may be limitations in the present form of government and all sorts of questionable mergers and defections, but the Presidential form of government is not suitable for India,” he said, while replying to a question whether the Presidential form of government was better suited for India.

In the present parliamentary system every loophole has been exploited to suit the personal benefits rather than to plug it. Judiciary took the centrestage and hailed by the people. Suddenly, a debate started of encroachments and many face-offs witnessed in the past.

In plain terms governance has become victim to the unwanted and deliberate adjustments. The council of ministers is all about adjustments, regional aspirations based on give-and- take. Off late, democracy in election commission also debated a lot. It's 62 years since India got independence and in his famous 'tryst with destiny' speech first prime minister of India JL Nehru set out his objective, "The service of India means the service of the millions who suffer. It means the ending of poverty and ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity". Prime minister of India (?) on August 15, 2009 will again utter these words how he strives to end poverty and…

When India is compared with China we pat our back that at least we have a democracy where every voice is heard. We hear, we speak but, the action is missing.

The left, right, centre-right the entire political spectrum with all hues - socialism, communism, secularism, nationalism…mixed to form a dangerous cocktail…please shed all isms…

Inclusive growth through using abundant human and physical resources is need of the hour for India. Instances are there where we shown courage to change. Pokhran and Liberalisation are case in point. How long the Indians battle it out that who needs reservations, whether we need strong anti-terror law, should we have a nuclear deal with the US…who should shake hands with whom publically?

1 comment:

shivaji said...

yes, after the experience of more than 60 years about parliamentary system, a serious thought about presidential system is required, a nation wide debate is needed.