I found this interesting site..
http://www.adrindia.org/
I was reluctant to start a new thread for this myself & was going to post on "Miscellaneous Topics" so if admins think this is unnecesary please merge with that thread.
Over the long term ( if this thread survives <!--emo&  --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) hopefully the discussion would focus on how we can make our electoral system better. Please post things related to electoral process reform ONLY.
Regards.
I know this article has nothing to do with democratic reforms but this move from congress can definitely be called a reform...
Mixed feelings about Cong interviews for assembly elections
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Vasantrao Itkelwar, 72, an independent seeking to contest in the state assembly elections on a Congress ticket, is preparing to appear in an interview before the Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee panel.
Itkelwar, an elected Maharashtra assembly member from the Umred assembly seat, is one of about 1,000 waiting since morning for an interview.
After the interview, he said he had been confident he would get a ticket because Congress President Sonia Gandhi had promised party tickets for all independent MLAs supporting the Sushilkumar Shinde government in the state. The interviews were a new wrinkle introduced by the party, said Itkelwar.
"Most of the interviewers were junior to me, and I replied [their questions] very confidently," he said.
The candidate presented their bio-datas and newspaper cuttings about their work to the interviewers. They were asked questions about their work and their enthusiasm for it.
While some candidates were very happy with the new selection procedure, some believed it was a farce. A nervous candidate emerging from the interview said, "The candidate's name is already decided. The party's conducting interviews to show picks a candidate democratically. This is a drama to generate party funds."
There were 1,519 applicants, each paying the party 10,000 rupees as application fees.
Senior Congress leaders, including Vilashrao Deshmukh, Prabha Rau, A R Antulay and Vilas Muttemwar, interviewed the candidates Sunday and Monday.
Satyendra Gedam, 29, a member of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, seeks to contest the assembly elections from Nagpur.
Young and confident, Gedam said, "I'm not rich, I don't have any godfather in politics. Still I'm sure the party will give me a ticket because I belong to a tribe and I have good support wihin the community. If the party wants to minimize the presence of the Gondwana Gantantra Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party in Vidarbha, it will have to promote tribal candidates like me."
The Congress lost 10 of 11 Parliament seats in Vidharbha in the recently held elections that saw the BSP emerge a force to reckon with in the region.
Immediately after the election date was announced, interested candidates started lobbying to get party tickets.
But the current practice of interviewing candidates has reduced animosity in the rank and file, and observers believe this exercise will minimize revolt within the party.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NDA needs to reform its internal processes for allocating tickets. Some form of primaries need to be introduced to avoid the kind of tamashas that break out every now and then.. This would ensure candidates that actually are selected by party cadres and help minimising lobbies like we have right now..
Would be nice to have a Indian site like this to keep tabs on who's funding whom...
for example, it's reported that some Islamic Institute sponsored Bob Barr <!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo--> (of all people) with about $18K for 'fact finding' and a speech in Dubai.
Bob seems to be NRA favorite.
It is very difficult to track desi leaders, every level there is so much curruption, they can show 10K on water.
Mudy: The <i>do number</i> paisa is a parallel economy in itself, no questions about it. There might be some citizen-watch groups that are tracking this at a higher level.
<!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> Holding a mirror to the new lok sabha
Altho this probably belongs to a non-existent thread for admin reforms (Rahul Mehta favorite) but i suppose this is the closest one..
Force3 website
Anybody know about these guys ? I liked some of the stuff they have come out with..
Unequal law
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->3 December 2004: Court cases related to the post-Godhra Gujarat riots and J.Jayalalithaa are being tried outside Gujarat and Tamil Nadu. Yesterday, the BJP demanded in Parliament to try the Kanchi-Shankaracharya case also outside Tamil Nadu, where Jayalalithaa could not influence it. One witness in the case says he was tortured in police custody, his teeth broken, to implicate the seer in the murder of a Kanchi-Mutt employee, Sankararaman. Especially sensitive is Sushma Swarajâs allegation that the Shankaracharya is being ill-treated in custody, not being given proper food, and there being no arrangement for his daily prayers.
Meanwhile, the Best-Bakery case is in the doldrums, because one prosecution witness after another, commencing with Zahira Sheikh, has turned hostile in court. The trial outside Gujarat on a fast track has been further vitiated by Zahiraâs allegations that the anti-communal activist, Teesta Setalvad, and some others forced her to make eyewitness claims to the Best-Bakery carnage, and that she was shown photographs of the accused before police identification. Subsequently, Zahiraâs brother and sister have also turned hostile, and Teesta, besides suffering personal damage to her reputation, has also had to take anticipatory bail in fear of arrest by the Gujarat police.
But the Shankaracharya and Best-Bakery trials are not the only ones to invite suspicions. As we wrote in an earlier commentary (âLet truth prevail,â 31 October 2003), Kehar Singh was hanged for Indira Gandhiâs assassination on no ground or evidence other than criticising Operation Bluestar. On the other hand, Bharat Shah was acquitted for allegedly financing a movie, Chori Chori, Chupke Chupke, with underworld funds, while S.A.R.Geelani was set free by the Delhi high court because his cellphone conversation with two conspirators in the December-2001 Parliament attack was not enough to implicate him. Still earlier, there was the Jessica-Lal case, where three prosecution witnesses turned hostile in the murder of the fashion model.
What we have in all these cases is different or not-so-similar elements strung by a common thread. Witnesses turning hostile after alleging custodial torture, particularly grave in the Shankaracharya case. Flat state intimidation in some trials, forcing the Gujarat riot and Jayalalithaa cases to be tried outside the state. And the courts dismissing charges again key accuseds, Bharat Shah for receiving mafia funds, and Geelani as a co-conspirator in the Parliament attack. The common thread is all the crises in criminal-justice administration arises from India retaining the British adversarial system of justice, while most of the Western world is switching to or adopting key elements of the inquisitorial system.
<b>On an average, one-hundred-and-six criminal cases are daily registered with the courts all over India, out of which a shocking one-hundred-and-two cases are dismissed. Either the courts see through a frame-up, or the prosecution is unable to adduce sufficient evidence against the accused. </b> Most of the evidence is made up of statements of witnesses. Even standard scientific methods to strengthen an investigation are rarely employed. Once witnesses turn hostile, the case crumbles. Often, simple rules to collect evidence are not followed, like entries in the daily diary, mandatory under the NDPS Act, or sealing of seizures immediately after recovery. In their haste to get publicity, the seizures are shown to the press, and the defence immediately alleges tampering, leaving the courts no alternative but to dismiss the case.
The CrPC was amended in 1974 to separate police investigation from the prosecutorâs office. This has left the prosecutorâs office with little to no control over the investigations. He can advise the investigating officer about lack of compelling evidence, he can point to loopholes which will lead to dismissals, but this advice is not binding, with the result, prosecutors take cases to court against their better judgment. The US follows the pre-1974 system, where the district attorneyâs office has full control over every aspect of the case, each piece of evidence has many layers of support. Where the investigation is considered weak, further investigation is ordered. The DAâs office conducts mock trials to combat possible defence strategies. Naturally, the successful prosecutions are more.
But more advanced is the French inquisitorial system, where a juge dâinstruction supervises the criminal investigation, hears witnesses and suspects, orders searches and writes warrants, all with the aim not to prosecute a particular person but to find the truth. The juge dâinstructionâs decision may be appealed. Applied to the Shankaracharya case, the juge dâinstruction would have first determined to commit him to custody or not, then ensured his reverential treatment, certainly prevented third-degree torture of the witness, and by now would have concluded one way or another about the seerâs innocence. In Kehar Singhâs case, he would have been free and alive, but the fates of Bharat Shah and Geelani would be harder to determine. It is quite possible Geelani may not have undergone a rigorous, soul-destroying two-year imprisonment in Tihar under the inquisitorial system.
In April 2003, the Justice V.S.Maliamath committee recommended to graft some inquisitorial practices onto Indiaâs adversarial legal system, bringing police investigation under courts, separating investigators from law-enforcers, and a separate Supreme-Court and high-court benches with specialist judges to try criminal cases. Predictably, the recommendations are gathering dust. Much earlier, the law commission had suggested amending Section 164 of the CrPC so all statements from material witnesses had to be recorded on oath before a magistrate, one way to prevent witnesses from turning hostile or perjuring. This amendment though debated in the government has not been codified.
<b>Instead, makeshift solutions are being tried, trial outside a hostile state, fast-tracking trials, etc, but these have not dented the growing crises in criminal-justice administration. In broad daylight and before hundreds of eyewitnesses, one former Bihar MP instigated his supporters to lynch a district collector. The ex-MP himself struck deathblows, but is out free. The Shankaracharya is brought in a beat-up police van to the court while Pappu Yadav travels in a luxury car. If you are rich and powerful, you are more likely to get off than if you are poor but innocent. Consider the plight of thousands of undertrials while Laloo Prasad Yadav romps about despite the fodder scam. It cannot get worse.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
SC asks EC to install cameras in polling booths
I think this is a good idea. The recordings can be made part of the electronic voting machine ? Small webcams cant be that costly ? The resolution can be minimal.
Protector of the democratic citizen
I was too young (perhaps still am) then to understand this, but my dad used to say this all the time. He was a HUGE fan of Sri Palkhiwala.
Having said this, I think Sri Shourie raises interesting point. Who supercedes the other ? Legislature or Judiciary ? What is the "basic structure of the constitution" ? What is so sacrosanct about it ? Can it be changed ? What are the limits within which the judiciary/legislature can operate ? Is the parliament really the will of the people ?
Presidential democracy is perfect for India in my opinion. I do not agree with ex-president Mr.Narayanan's assertion that it will lead to dictatorship at all. Here is why:
1. In a Presidential form, the president and the legislature are seperate branches unlike our system where executive (PM and the council of ministers) is a part of the legislature. The legislature will totally be independent of the executive and can challenge any legislation put forward by the executive such as President. In fact, the legislature can make its own legislation and the President can veto such a a legislation. The legislature can override the veto with something like 2/3 majority. So the presidential system provide perfect balance between legislature and executive.
2. Our system is corrupt because the ruling party forms the executive from people in the legislature and this executive makes laws and their party will naturally approve them. There is no balance here. Even if the ruling party legislators do not like it, they have to approve or else the Govt. will be forced to call elections. How in the hell can my MLA or MP vote against a legislation that is against the interests of majority of his constituents and bring down the Govt. of his own party? He can't. So he will never do that. Otherwise, he can be expelled or dis-qualified under our constitution.In a presidential form, two legislators belonging to the same party can vote differently depending on whether a bill is supported by their constituents or not. He does not need to toe the party line.
3. In our system, we have instituted the anti-defection law to avoid horse-trading. The anti-defection law is simply treating the symptom, not curing. That is why, it has been a big failure. There are many loop-holes and the political parties simply use those loop-holes to subvert the system.
4. The high-command of the parties will be powerless and the every state will push forward genuine leaders. We will get rid of nominating CM/PM using backroom manouvering and allow direct transparent election of these individuals. We can even have parimaries as a means to elect a candidate within the party instead of nominating. This applies both to PM or CM or MLA or MP. So in essence, the party members elect their candidate and that candidate contests with other candidates elected by their own parties and the final election will reflect true representative of the people. The parimaries will force the party members to elect a candidate who can attract large sections of the society rather than a polarizing figure.
5. The major weakness of the Parliamentary system as witnessed in recent years is the fractured mandate which has resulted in unstable coaliations and unstoppable corruption. There is also people's inability to distinguish local, state and national issues. The regional parties can be elected to represent in the parliament (legislature) where as a national figure can elected by people as Prime Minster. The idelogies of the President and the Parliament can be different and each will act as a check against the powers of the other branch. For example, an elector who does not like Chandrababu Naidu could have voted against Telugu Desam in the state elections, Parliament elections and still voted for Vajpayee as Prime Minister or vice versa. In the current scenario, a vote against TDP parliamentary candidate might result in an indirect vote for Lalu Prasad Yadav even if the electors in AP have no idea what his policies are.
6. In a Presidential from, the President or a Chief Minister can appoint any body to his council of ministers. It can be a bet that he will choose worthy candidates to improve his own peformance.It is possible that some will appoint their relatives. So a legislation that prohibits people from appointing their own relatives (anti-nepotism) law can act as a check against. Also, the legislature approves each ministers appointed by the President or CM. So they can also act independently to disapprove such unworthy candidates if there is a public outcry.
7. The judiciary is currently totally controlled by the executive in the current setup. In a presidential form, the legislature can deny the recommendation of a judicial appointment by the president and the president will be forced to compromise with legislature to appoint judges.
In essence, the advantages of Presidential democracy will far outwiegh the disadvantages and it can be real strength for our democracy.
Please post your arguments.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Presidential democracy is perfect for India in my opinion<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It will only work, if it is based on fixed term. President can stay in power not more than 2 terms. No extension in any case. Otherwise dynasty will stay for ever.
For Presidential system India needs more time. Till 80% Indiaâs population is not literate it will be exploited by manipulators, Ashwirya Rai or Govinda or Sachin can be President for life term in current India.
In current political situation Sonia is a Proxy President, popped by greedy people.
ANy system which does not allow manipualtion from outside powers is OK>
Right now the entire system is rigged with outside powers haveing huge
influence.
A simpler reform would be holding of primaries. One of the parties has to start it first. The costs of the elections need to be reduced. When confidence is established on a low cost electioneering system then referendums can be tried out on a limited basis, methinks.
I agree that a term limit is mandatory for several offices in Presidential or even Parliamentary systems. It prevents the abuse of office for a long term. We can have it even now. But you know, the political lying DIE-NASTIES such as NEHRU DIE-NASTY, LALU DIENASTY will still do what they are doing. LALU will retire and make his wife, SONIA will pull the strings from behind using a chamcha etc. But they can do that for so long. Eventually they will run out of chamchas or a chamcha will revolt weakening MAFIA's power.
The primaries concept is even applicable to Parliamentary system but it will further weaken the Govt. because the there are so many parties already and on top of it, the MLA/MP is not picked by the party and he/she will be more independent and loyal to its constituents. So there will be a major breakdown of the Govt. In order to avoid this, we have to elect PM/CM independently and give them a 4/5 year term.
|
