Pulling At A Delicate Fabric

So the cat is out of the bag. Mr Advani does want a Presidential form of government. What else he wants we do not yet know, but he clearly envisages a major overhaul of the Constitution "�"� the end, indeed, of the first republic, created by Gandhi, Nehru and Ambedkar. To say that parliamentary democracy is not one of the basic features of the Constitution is nothing short of sophistry. Surely a man as intelligent as Mr Advani knows that. If he is still willing to expose himself to ridicule, he must have very strong motives for wanting to change the document.

 

I think he stands above the many charismatic Indian politicians, who have for decades had a penchant for the Presidential form because it seems like the one way they can cut through the checks and balances of the system, straight to South Block and Rashtrapati Bhawan rolled into one. Mr Vajpayee is one of those whos been in this category, but Mr Advani must surely have something more in mind if hes pushing so strongly for it at a time when the government is scrambling to retain its balance on a treacherous slope.

Of course, a comprehensive review of the Constitution would provide the cover to drop Article 370 and impose a uniform civil code without taking specific steps towards these ends. It could provide the cover to do much else to subtly transform the basic fabric of the nation "�"� to switch the concept of nationalism on which modern India is founded. Whatever the motives, the galling fact is that a party without a majority of votes or seats in the house of the people, which has been allowed by the flexibility of the Constitution to take over the government on the basis of each ministers (and each member of Parliaments) oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India, wants to review that Constitution.

The BJP probably has much else in mind but let us for the moment just examine some reasons why a Presidential system could prove disastrous for India. The Republic of India is a unique and bold experiment. Never before has universal adult franchise been vouchsafed in a primarily agrarian, largely primitive society, except perhaps in 18th century France "�"� but France was not a fifth of mankind, spread across a subcontinent as diverse as any on Earth. Yet democracy has succeeded here. Life has undeniably become better for most citizens, albeit insufficiently. The parliamentary system has ensured that representatives from the most backward and divergent areas of this hugely diverse place can interact, while sitting in the same chamber, with the chief executive of the nation and his colleagues responsible for various facets of government. And these ministers are forced, particularly when they do not have the support of a comfortable majority in that house, to listen and respond.

A Presidential system would place the chief executive beyond reach for the most part. More dangerous, it would allow a person who represents only one part of the subcontinent or one sort of constituency to take power. A Presidential election could so easily become a dangerously divisive north-south contest, or an urban-rural divide or an upper caste-Dalit faceoff. Those who see the prospect of stability in such a system should consider the cost of a campaign that would last perhaps a year "�"� one that would tend to shut out all but the wealthy or those backed by big business. The consequence could be the alienation of large sections of the population, who would have no stake in the system to prevent them from trying to subvert it.

India will not for some time yet mature into a predominantly industrialised, relatively homo-genous country and there is little prospect until that happens for a two- or three- or even four-party set up. Ergo, there would perhaps be a dozen, possibly 200, candidates in the first round of a direct election for President. There would have to be elimination rounds, each hugely expensive and perhaps involving a virtually fresh campaign, if the country does not want to risk having a chief executive with no more than 20 per cent of popular support.

Then, in a nation where the central government still controls large areas of activity beyond defence, diplomacy and budget-making, there would be potential for the executive and the legislature to be caught in a hopeless gridlock. And surely Mr Advani does envisage a Parliament, at least to vote on the governments budgetary proposals.

Think of the states then. A Presidency-based Constitution could surely not include a provision for the dismissal of a directly elected governor. So an executive governor, more likely than not a charismatic leader, would be far more likely to resort in times of political weakness to secessionist rhetoric than any chief minister now does. Parties like the Akali Dal or the Shiv Sena have a stake in the Union of India today, since each has ministers in the Union government. A Presidential system would limit such parties to a role in the governance of only their respective states. Given the parliamentary system, a state leader like Dr Farooq Abdullah could aspire a year or two ago to become the Vice-president of India, and he can now nominate his son to be a minister at the Centre. Those options would be virtually ruled out with an executive presidency. Secessionism could only get a fillip, unless of course authoritarianism does.