03-08-2005, 02:51 AM
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.
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.