03-09-2005, 02:23 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-rajesh_g+Mar 9 2005, 01:22 AM-->QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Mar 9 2005, 01:22 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Vijay,
I think changing from parliamentary system to presidential is a big step and lots of things have to be thought about before we can transform our system to that. I mentioned primaries as they are relatively easy to do and is one little step towards improving the feedback mechanism from janta to the neta. We have to come up with small implementable steps rather then a huge overhaul in order to remain pragmatic.
I do agree that a presidential system improves the feedback mechanism b/w janta and neta but it just seems like a BIG change with no chance of happening. Some innovative ideas like the anti-defection laws, curbs on number of ministries in states have to be thought of. And I think primaries is that small step towards making netas and parties more accountable to janta. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Primaries are good.
Anti-defection law as we have seen is practically circumvented whenever MAFIA kings like LALU and SONIA want it.
The thing I like about Presidential form is it seperates legislature from executive. The PM/CM is not elected by MLAs/MPs. The MLA/MP can't be minsters. So this clean seperation maintians the checks and balances of the system. Each want to check on the powers of the other and at the same time they have to work together to get what they want.
I know it is a big change. We have to start debating. It is a slow process but look at the state of Bihar. People are relieved that President's rule has been imposed instead of people's rule. Things are so bad.
K.R. Narayanan in his interview on rediff.co claims that the Presidential from leads to dictatorship. He is a COngress lacky with immense hatred for Hindus. He is a Sonia chmacha and he is no intellectual but he is a ex-president. So his opinion will be published in front pages.
Here are his excerpts:
http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/mar/07inter1.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->India has been following the parliamentary form of government all these years. Do you think the presidential form of government would have been better for India?
The presidential form of government can never be suitable for a country like India. I would say the presidential form would lead the country to a dictatorship. It could be the dictatorship of a person or of the army. It is not possible for a vast country like India to be governed by a President.
The parliamentary system has a mechanism for peaceful expression of people's resentments or criticism through the Opposition. It is parliamentary intervention that gives the country its stability. However, timely interventions and debates in Parliament should not be allowed to lead to explosive situations.
Criticism and disagreement are well accepted in the parliamentary rule. It is because of this noble mechanism that parliamentary democracy is thriving in India. The very basis of the stability of India is parliamentary democracy.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think changing from parliamentary system to presidential is a big step and lots of things have to be thought about before we can transform our system to that. I mentioned primaries as they are relatively easy to do and is one little step towards improving the feedback mechanism from janta to the neta. We have to come up with small implementable steps rather then a huge overhaul in order to remain pragmatic.
I do agree that a presidential system improves the feedback mechanism b/w janta and neta but it just seems like a BIG change with no chance of happening. Some innovative ideas like the anti-defection laws, curbs on number of ministries in states have to be thought of. And I think primaries is that small step towards making netas and parties more accountable to janta. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Primaries are good.
Anti-defection law as we have seen is practically circumvented whenever MAFIA kings like LALU and SONIA want it.
The thing I like about Presidential form is it seperates legislature from executive. The PM/CM is not elected by MLAs/MPs. The MLA/MP can't be minsters. So this clean seperation maintians the checks and balances of the system. Each want to check on the powers of the other and at the same time they have to work together to get what they want.
I know it is a big change. We have to start debating. It is a slow process but look at the state of Bihar. People are relieved that President's rule has been imposed instead of people's rule. Things are so bad.
K.R. Narayanan in his interview on rediff.co claims that the Presidential from leads to dictatorship. He is a COngress lacky with immense hatred for Hindus. He is a Sonia chmacha and he is no intellectual but he is a ex-president. So his opinion will be published in front pages.
Here are his excerpts:
http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/mar/07inter1.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->India has been following the parliamentary form of government all these years. Do you think the presidential form of government would have been better for India?
The presidential form of government can never be suitable for a country like India. I would say the presidential form would lead the country to a dictatorship. It could be the dictatorship of a person or of the army. It is not possible for a vast country like India to be governed by a President.
The parliamentary system has a mechanism for peaceful expression of people's resentments or criticism through the Opposition. It is parliamentary intervention that gives the country its stability. However, timely interventions and debates in Parliament should not be allowed to lead to explosive situations.
Criticism and disagreement are well accepted in the parliamentary rule. It is because of this noble mechanism that parliamentary democracy is thriving in India. The very basis of the stability of India is parliamentary democracy.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->