10-26-2007, 05:15 AM
<!--emo&
kull--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/aaskull.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='aaskull.gif' /><!--endemo--> Singh Parivar
T. S. R. SubramanianPosted online: Friday, October 26, 2007 at 0000 hrs Print EmailUPA allies have desecrated the cabinet system, put PM in a spot. But Congress is partly responsible.
T. S. R. Subramanian (author was Cabinet Secy to Govt of India from 1996-98)
Rad LinksIndian Express Airlines
Indian Express Classifieds
Let's look at some of the statements made by leaders of parties constituting the UPA in the past week or ten days, when it became clear that the nuclear deal is not going through, at least for the present. There was an interesting interview (Walk the Talk, on NDTV) done by the editor-the-chief of this newspaper, Shekhar Gupta, with the Tamil Nadu chief minister. M. Karunanidhi openly said he had âreservationsâ about the deal right from the beginning. At least a couple of other party leaders, representing UPA constituents, and themselves members of the cabinet, have also expressed their reservations, although not in such explicit terms. Indeed, even Congress spokespersons, who were vociferously supporting the deal, have been mute recently, now that the deal appears to be off; or at least placed in the backburner. One notes that it is only the prime minister who has recently been extolling the virtues of the agreement. So, suddenly it appears that none from the ruling coalition is keen on the nuclear deal, except the PM himself.
Leaving aside political nuances, where does this leave the concept of collective cabinet responsibility? Before the 123 agreement was accepted it was cleared by the cabinet. It has not been made public if any cabinet minister strongly, or even mildly, opposed the agreement. But suddenly cabinet ministers are expressing doubts about the utility of the arrangement. Did they not know of âpotentially negativeâ aspects when they approved the decision? Have any facts surfaced over the past ten days, to bring new doubts in the minds of the decision-makers regarding the value of the deal? On the face of it, it is appalling to see constituents of the ruling coalition, some of them themselves members of the Union cabinet, distancing themselves from a specific decision to which they have been a party. Whatever their reasons, the result is that the prime minister is in an embarrassing position.
I am not addressing here the issues relating to the merits of the deal or the political aspects thereof. My point is that the concept of collective cabinet responsibility has been thrown to the winds. The cabinet is a sacred institution in a democracy; there is room for debate in the cabinet before a decision is taken. However, every cabinet member is jointly and severally part of the decision, and cannot, even by implication, dissociate himself from the decision of which he was a part. This goes against the grain of past practice and is indirectly a show of no-confidence. It does not show the coalition partners in a good light.
Minutes of cabinet meetings are always terse and incorporate only the action points. In situations where some debate or disagreement surfaces, minutes may mention âafter discussionâ. In case the disagreement was strong, minutes may refer to âafter a detailed discussionâ. But in all cases all decisions are deemed to be unanimous. Once a decision is taken in the cabinet, no hint of lack of solidarity should be expected in a properly functioning system.
Walter Bagehot, if alive, would surely have raised an eyebrow. Right now he would be turning inside his coffin. Or maybe not. Because Bagehot would have had great difficulty defining Indiaâs current governing structure, as it has evolved over the past few decades.
Nominally, we are a parliamentary democracy. However, in practice, many features of a presidential system have surfaced, and got integrated with our governance mechanism. For instance, the rise of the prime ministerâs office in terms of power, prestige, and intervention capability has been palpably in evidence since the 1980s. The office of the special assistant ruling the roost in ministries, cutting into the legitimate domain of the secretary while acting at the behest of the minister, is a case in point. Indeed, it is a bizarre fact that real presidential powers in the country vest not with the chief executive but with a party functionary!
Likewise, the chief ministerâs secretariat is now supreme in most states, and the formally constituted machinery has been by-passed in many cases (for example, that police station officersâ transfers were done through a computer in the CMâs office has been well-known for many years; I recently understood that even the postings and transfers of constables are increasingly being done through this route). To complicate matters further, we also have traces of the Moghul way of functioning creeping into the system â the trusted henchman is allowed to do whatever he wants, so long he shows loyalty and pays a tribute.
All the above may not be true everywhere; there may be a trace of exaggeration here and there; but these are unmistakable trends in our governance pattern. Bagehot is perfectly entitled to get confused about the system of governance that has evolved in India over the years.
In a democracy, the parliament is the supreme authority, and is the repository of the nationâs sovereignty. That the legal dispensation has existed to provide for international treaties to be concluded by the executive without parliamentary approval in India is also a fact. However, this is merely a technicality; every major policy step presupposes parliamentary support or consent. There cannot be room in a democracy to embark on policy matters perceived to be of importance, without the tacit or actual concurrence of Parliament.
In the case of the nuclear agreement, without my commenting on its merits and implications, it was incumbent on the government to tacitly or overtly get Parliamentâs assent. Probably if this had been attempted well on time, a good deal of the present opposition may have been pre-empted. It is perhaps understandable that the prime minister had missed this point, in his political naiveté. But it is inexcusable for the Congress, with its political experience, not to have sought the correct path.
Ironically, the outcome of the experience of the past few months may result in Parliament now insisting that every international agreement be thrashed out, to the last nut and bolt, before India signs the same â this will be the unwarranted by-product, which is sure to curtail the flexibility of the executive and its ease of operation. Such a situation would have been wrought upon itself by the executive.
kull--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/aaskull.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='aaskull.gif' /><!--endemo--> Singh ParivarT. S. R. SubramanianPosted online: Friday, October 26, 2007 at 0000 hrs Print EmailUPA allies have desecrated the cabinet system, put PM in a spot. But Congress is partly responsible.
T. S. R. Subramanian (author was Cabinet Secy to Govt of India from 1996-98)
Rad LinksIndian Express Airlines
Indian Express Classifieds
Let's look at some of the statements made by leaders of parties constituting the UPA in the past week or ten days, when it became clear that the nuclear deal is not going through, at least for the present. There was an interesting interview (Walk the Talk, on NDTV) done by the editor-the-chief of this newspaper, Shekhar Gupta, with the Tamil Nadu chief minister. M. Karunanidhi openly said he had âreservationsâ about the deal right from the beginning. At least a couple of other party leaders, representing UPA constituents, and themselves members of the cabinet, have also expressed their reservations, although not in such explicit terms. Indeed, even Congress spokespersons, who were vociferously supporting the deal, have been mute recently, now that the deal appears to be off; or at least placed in the backburner. One notes that it is only the prime minister who has recently been extolling the virtues of the agreement. So, suddenly it appears that none from the ruling coalition is keen on the nuclear deal, except the PM himself.
Leaving aside political nuances, where does this leave the concept of collective cabinet responsibility? Before the 123 agreement was accepted it was cleared by the cabinet. It has not been made public if any cabinet minister strongly, or even mildly, opposed the agreement. But suddenly cabinet ministers are expressing doubts about the utility of the arrangement. Did they not know of âpotentially negativeâ aspects when they approved the decision? Have any facts surfaced over the past ten days, to bring new doubts in the minds of the decision-makers regarding the value of the deal? On the face of it, it is appalling to see constituents of the ruling coalition, some of them themselves members of the Union cabinet, distancing themselves from a specific decision to which they have been a party. Whatever their reasons, the result is that the prime minister is in an embarrassing position.
I am not addressing here the issues relating to the merits of the deal or the political aspects thereof. My point is that the concept of collective cabinet responsibility has been thrown to the winds. The cabinet is a sacred institution in a democracy; there is room for debate in the cabinet before a decision is taken. However, every cabinet member is jointly and severally part of the decision, and cannot, even by implication, dissociate himself from the decision of which he was a part. This goes against the grain of past practice and is indirectly a show of no-confidence. It does not show the coalition partners in a good light.
Minutes of cabinet meetings are always terse and incorporate only the action points. In situations where some debate or disagreement surfaces, minutes may mention âafter discussionâ. In case the disagreement was strong, minutes may refer to âafter a detailed discussionâ. But in all cases all decisions are deemed to be unanimous. Once a decision is taken in the cabinet, no hint of lack of solidarity should be expected in a properly functioning system.
Walter Bagehot, if alive, would surely have raised an eyebrow. Right now he would be turning inside his coffin. Or maybe not. Because Bagehot would have had great difficulty defining Indiaâs current governing structure, as it has evolved over the past few decades.
Nominally, we are a parliamentary democracy. However, in practice, many features of a presidential system have surfaced, and got integrated with our governance mechanism. For instance, the rise of the prime ministerâs office in terms of power, prestige, and intervention capability has been palpably in evidence since the 1980s. The office of the special assistant ruling the roost in ministries, cutting into the legitimate domain of the secretary while acting at the behest of the minister, is a case in point. Indeed, it is a bizarre fact that real presidential powers in the country vest not with the chief executive but with a party functionary!
Likewise, the chief ministerâs secretariat is now supreme in most states, and the formally constituted machinery has been by-passed in many cases (for example, that police station officersâ transfers were done through a computer in the CMâs office has been well-known for many years; I recently understood that even the postings and transfers of constables are increasingly being done through this route). To complicate matters further, we also have traces of the Moghul way of functioning creeping into the system â the trusted henchman is allowed to do whatever he wants, so long he shows loyalty and pays a tribute.
All the above may not be true everywhere; there may be a trace of exaggeration here and there; but these are unmistakable trends in our governance pattern. Bagehot is perfectly entitled to get confused about the system of governance that has evolved in India over the years.
In a democracy, the parliament is the supreme authority, and is the repository of the nationâs sovereignty. That the legal dispensation has existed to provide for international treaties to be concluded by the executive without parliamentary approval in India is also a fact. However, this is merely a technicality; every major policy step presupposes parliamentary support or consent. There cannot be room in a democracy to embark on policy matters perceived to be of importance, without the tacit or actual concurrence of Parliament.
In the case of the nuclear agreement, without my commenting on its merits and implications, it was incumbent on the government to tacitly or overtly get Parliamentâs assent. Probably if this had been attempted well on time, a good deal of the present opposition may have been pre-empted. It is perhaps understandable that the prime minister had missed this point, in his political naiveté. But it is inexcusable for the Congress, with its political experience, not to have sought the correct path.
Ironically, the outcome of the experience of the past few months may result in Parliament now insisting that every international agreement be thrashed out, to the last nut and bolt, before India signs the same â this will be the unwarranted by-product, which is sure to curtail the flexibility of the executive and its ease of operation. Such a situation would have been wrought upon itself by the executive.