The crisis of governance in India cannot be resolved without considering radical political reforms that would lead to the creation of a new republic. We must take a hard look at where we have gone wrong and why we have been unable to achieve the goals we had set for ourselves six decades ago. Other republics have evolved; so should we. The time has come for a Second Republic
Faulty governance is an old problem of India; criticising this Government or that is unlikely to solve it. The root of the malaise lies in the system which in turn is set by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has opined that the basic structure of this national document cannot be changed. The only way out then is to call for a Second Republic. Since the French Revolution of 1792, France is in its Fifth Republic. Since the unification of Germany by Otto von Bismarck in 1871, Germany is in its Fifth Reich.
How can we expect a Constitution which was structured around the Government of India Act, 1935, passed by the British Parliament in order to govern colonial India better, to endure effectively? That the national document does not answer the country’s needs is evidenced by the fact that it has been amended 109 times in a matter of six decades. The USA has had occasion to amend its Constitution 22 times over a period spanning 230 years. The American document has only seven Articles written on 23 pages. Our Constitution, on the other hand, comprises 395 Articles on 236 pages, the longest national document in the world.
Another mistake of our constitutional authors was to adopt the Westminster model of parliamentary Government which mixes the legislative function with the formation of the executive. The members of Parliament and the State Assemblies are elected for making laws but, after being elected, also help to form and support the Ministries; some of them become Ministers and thus form the executive. Making laws and executing them are two separate roles, and should be performed by different persons.
A classic shortcoming of the mix-up of functions was demonstrated by the fall of the first Vajpayee Government in 1999. Mr Girdhar Gomango, a member of the Lok Sabha, who had not yet resigned his membership but had taken over as Chief Minister of Odisha, helped to topple that Government by a single vote. He came from Bhubaneswar and voted with the Congress on that fateful day. Someone elected from a Lok Sabha constituency in Odisha had risen to be important enough to bring down the Union Government!
In any case, a system of Government which has suited Britain, a unitary country of one language, one culture and largely one religion, was hardly the one likely to answer the needs of a vast multi-lingual polity like India, comprising several religious denominations. Moreover, Britain is a monarchy whereas India has no king or queen. The way the Rashtrapati has been reduced to being a rubber stamp of the Union Government makes one wonder why the luxury? When necessary briefly, why cannot the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court stand in?
Another bane of the Westminster model is the probability of coalition Governments. While they may appear stable, many a partner party Minister often pursues his wayward line. There is seldom unity of policy implementation which again leads to poor governance. The UPA2 is an example. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has repeatedly clarified that he is answerable for any corruption or misconduct by a Congress Minister. For those representing the coalition parties, he could do little; hence, the 2G scam was not his responsibility but that of the DMK.
That is the explanation for the last seven years. Before that also there have been several coalition Governments, six of which were short-lived. In a total of 86 months there were six prime ministers, Morarji Desai (34 months), Charan Singh (six months), Mr Vajpayee (15 days in 1996), Mr HD Deve Gowda and Mr IK Gujral (34 months), Mr Vajpayee again (for a year in 1998/99). A pathetic picture although it is not as bad as pre-de Gaulle France or post-1945 Italy.
For a change in the system, a model should be similar to the presidential structure. The mechanism of checks and balances is indeed one secret of American governance. The Indian conditions, however, are different; the diversity makes it difficult for one person to represent all the various regions as well as the many sections of the people.
The people of Western Christian ethos are able to function well even with state intervention, be it public enterprises, as in France and Germany, or welfare activity like the British National Health Scheme. The Hindu psyche is tuned to individual salvation. In the Eastern ethos, excessive state intervention is not welcome. India, therefore, needs a minimal state that maintains law and order, ensures justice, protects the country’s frontiers and creates an infrastructure for development.
It is, therefore, suggested that there be a trinity of Presidents at the centre and a troika of Governors in the States. The President, the Vice-President and the Deputy President; likewise Governors for the States. The three would be elected by adult franchise through a direct poll. The overall winner would be the President, the runner up Vice-President and the next highest vote receiver should be Deputy President.
All executive power would be vested in this trimoorti within which the weightage of authority should be distributed according to the percentage of votes won by the three respective individuals. The term of office could be six years but without the privilege of any of the three standing for re-election. Governors would also be denied the right to stand for any other office in their respective States.
The reason behind this denial is to prevent any indulgence in populist moves by the office-holders with the temptation to get re-elected. It is, therefore, likely that the Presidents and Governors would concentrate on good governance as distinct from playing to the gallery. Parliament and State Assemblies should continue to be makers of laws and act as counter-checks to the executive as the Congress does in the US. A call for a Second Republic needs to be given.
Source: The Pioneer
Faulty governance is an old problem of India; criticising this Government or that is unlikely to solve it. The root of the malaise lies in the system which in turn is set by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has opined that the basic structure of this national document cannot be changed. The only way out then is to call for a Second Republic. Since the French Revolution of 1792, France is in its Fifth Republic. Since the unification of Germany by Otto von Bismarck in 1871, Germany is in its Fifth Reich.
How can we expect a Constitution which was structured around the Government of India Act, 1935, passed by the British Parliament in order to govern colonial India better, to endure effectively? That the national document does not answer the country’s needs is evidenced by the fact that it has been amended 109 times in a matter of six decades. The USA has had occasion to amend its Constitution 22 times over a period spanning 230 years. The American document has only seven Articles written on 23 pages. Our Constitution, on the other hand, comprises 395 Articles on 236 pages, the longest national document in the world.
Another mistake of our constitutional authors was to adopt the Westminster model of parliamentary Government which mixes the legislative function with the formation of the executive. The members of Parliament and the State Assemblies are elected for making laws but, after being elected, also help to form and support the Ministries; some of them become Ministers and thus form the executive. Making laws and executing them are two separate roles, and should be performed by different persons.
A classic shortcoming of the mix-up of functions was demonstrated by the fall of the first Vajpayee Government in 1999. Mr Girdhar Gomango, a member of the Lok Sabha, who had not yet resigned his membership but had taken over as Chief Minister of Odisha, helped to topple that Government by a single vote. He came from Bhubaneswar and voted with the Congress on that fateful day. Someone elected from a Lok Sabha constituency in Odisha had risen to be important enough to bring down the Union Government!
In any case, a system of Government which has suited Britain, a unitary country of one language, one culture and largely one religion, was hardly the one likely to answer the needs of a vast multi-lingual polity like India, comprising several religious denominations. Moreover, Britain is a monarchy whereas India has no king or queen. The way the Rashtrapati has been reduced to being a rubber stamp of the Union Government makes one wonder why the luxury? When necessary briefly, why cannot the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court stand in?
Another bane of the Westminster model is the probability of coalition Governments. While they may appear stable, many a partner party Minister often pursues his wayward line. There is seldom unity of policy implementation which again leads to poor governance. The UPA2 is an example. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has repeatedly clarified that he is answerable for any corruption or misconduct by a Congress Minister. For those representing the coalition parties, he could do little; hence, the 2G scam was not his responsibility but that of the DMK.
That is the explanation for the last seven years. Before that also there have been several coalition Governments, six of which were short-lived. In a total of 86 months there were six prime ministers, Morarji Desai (34 months), Charan Singh (six months), Mr Vajpayee (15 days in 1996), Mr HD Deve Gowda and Mr IK Gujral (34 months), Mr Vajpayee again (for a year in 1998/99). A pathetic picture although it is not as bad as pre-de Gaulle France or post-1945 Italy.
For a change in the system, a model should be similar to the presidential structure. The mechanism of checks and balances is indeed one secret of American governance. The Indian conditions, however, are different; the diversity makes it difficult for one person to represent all the various regions as well as the many sections of the people.
The people of Western Christian ethos are able to function well even with state intervention, be it public enterprises, as in France and Germany, or welfare activity like the British National Health Scheme. The Hindu psyche is tuned to individual salvation. In the Eastern ethos, excessive state intervention is not welcome. India, therefore, needs a minimal state that maintains law and order, ensures justice, protects the country’s frontiers and creates an infrastructure for development.
It is, therefore, suggested that there be a trinity of Presidents at the centre and a troika of Governors in the States. The President, the Vice-President and the Deputy President; likewise Governors for the States. The three would be elected by adult franchise through a direct poll. The overall winner would be the President, the runner up Vice-President and the next highest vote receiver should be Deputy President.
All executive power would be vested in this trimoorti within which the weightage of authority should be distributed according to the percentage of votes won by the three respective individuals. The term of office could be six years but without the privilege of any of the three standing for re-election. Governors would also be denied the right to stand for any other office in their respective States.
The reason behind this denial is to prevent any indulgence in populist moves by the office-holders with the temptation to get re-elected. It is, therefore, likely that the Presidents and Governors would concentrate on good governance as distinct from playing to the gallery. Parliament and State Assemblies should continue to be makers of laws and act as counter-checks to the executive as the Congress does in the US. A call for a Second Republic needs to be given.
Source: The Pioneer
