President’s rule

Democracy has been shortchanged with a system of governance which welcomes loud and corrupt and keeps the intelligent and the honest at bay

Never in the history of independent India had there been such complete disenchantment of the public with their political representatives. All opinion polls prior to the general elections brought out the total lack of credibility of the political class. "Sab Chor Hain" (all are thieves) was the general refrain. And, yet, the public did vote, in overwhelming numbers (more than 300 million), to prove to those who would be their masters that they were behind the campaign to clean up the political stables.

If it was not the office of the Election Commission that was strictly monitoring any excess in poll expenditures and "putting the fear of Seshan" into straying politicians, it was an activist Supreme Court that was seeing to it that the wrongdoings of national-level politicians were properly tackled rather than swept under the rug. The President proved willing to intervene to get a governor to resign for misdeeds committed while a central minister. No more a rubber stamp, it seemed, Shanker Dayal Sharma also returned two populist ordinances sent to him by the Prime Minister for approval just prior to the elections.

While all this shows that the the justices, election authorities and Head of State were aware and alert in the run-up to the elections, how long can they make up for inert, ineffective and corrupt politicians without being accused of overstepping constitutional propriety?

For, in the months to come, as in the past, one can expect that Parliament will be repeatedly stalled due to walkouts, vociferous protests and general mayhem. Rare will be the moments when there will be meaningful debates in the House, and one can expect that the Hawala-tainted political parties— which means all the important ones—will do their utmost to undercut the prosecution. This is because almost all leading politicans are alleged to have taken tainted money from dubious business interests.

Will the activism of constitutional bodies and exposure of mercenary politicians make a difference as the country settles down to post-election living? Or will it be back to business as usual, which is what the politicians would want?

From the national down to the tehsil level, politicians have stood discredited because of their lackadaisical performances and venality. An opinion poll by Gallup shows that only 25 percent of the people still have confidence in the two houses of Parliament. The same opinion poll shows that as many as 84 percent have faith in the army, while 77 percent repose confidence in the judiciary.

An existential question stares the Indian polity on its face today. Given the kind of politicians it has produced, is the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy suitable for a country of this size and diversity? What are the alternatives?

Some years ago, prominent Congressman and former minister Vasant Sathe had initiated a debate on the desirability of a presidential form of government for India. It did not really take off. Few were interested to discuss the matter, and it died a quick death. While conceding that chances of successfully unseating the Westminster model might be slim, the debate would have been instructive. Why might a presidential system (with direct election of a head of state to run India and of governors for each of the states) work, and why exactly did the present model inexorably lead the country towards opportunistic politics since the day it was activated in 1947?

A look at the experience of neighbouring countries is not very useful, particularly because India is in a class by itself. In fact, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal are all themselves struggling with the British model, and they are doing just as badly as (actually, worse than) India. Sri Lanka is engaged in an experiment with the presidential form of government, but the jury is still out on it because the country has not had the stability to provide a proper test of the system.

While every country must evolve its own system, sometimes it is good to copy someone else´s. At the very least, let some social scientists do a simulation exercise, using computer projections, and show us the face of India under a US-type presidential system.

The saving grace of India is its democracy, which has taken firm root after 49 years of it (minus a couple for the Emergency years). But that democracy has been short-changed with a system of governance which welcomes the loud and the corrupt and keeps the intelligent and the honest at bay.

If the computer simulation indicates that India has got the multi-party parliamentary democracy it deserves, and that a presidential system is impracticable, then we will just have to go about looking for checks and balances, won't we?