DO WE NEED PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM

         It is argued by some section of the society that the political system in India was created based entirely on British parliamentary democracy and their experience of what they themselves were deprived of. So, according to these people, the Westminster model of democracy is not suited to our reality.

        Traditionally, there have been three criticisms of the presidential form of government: the president can assume dictatorial powers; the executive is not responsible to the directly elected legislature; and finally, if the president belongs to one party and the legislature is controlled by another party, it can lead to conflict and paralysis. Each of these criticisms can be dealt with. As the US experience has shown, there are definite checks and balances in the presidential system.

 

Benefits of Presidential system:

• First, it will force political parties to be more democratic and robust. All political parties will have to chose their best candidates as there will be a direct head-to-head contest. The people will not accept anyone less. There will be no alternate power centres, no remote controls, and no backseat drivers. Those not in the magic circle will get an opportunity.
• Second, the voters will know their candidates intimately. The electorate has enough data to take calls on their candidates.
• Third, the president will be fully in charge of the executive. He will be able to attract the best and brightest to his cabinet, irrespective of their political affiliations. They will serve at his pleasure and be accountable to him. He wont have to fix quotas for allies or give important positions to senior but incompetent leaders. Nor will he have to waste time thinking about their loyalty.
• Fourth, the government will be stable. The president will be elected by the people and will be voted out by them. He will not have to appease unreasonable allies and indulge in compromises all the time. He can raise FDI sectoral caps, increase the price of diesel, and hike train fares without thinking that his job is in danger or that he will be forced to rollback these measures.
• Fifth, the legislature will be free to do its work. The job of parliament is to pass laws. But opposition law-makers have begun to believe their duty is to bring down the government. Once that power is taken away from them, it will bring them back to their primary task of discussing bills and passing laws that will improve the lot of the people.

Arguments against Presidential system:

• A presidential system centralises power in one individual unlike the parliamentary system, where the Prime Minister is the first among equals. The surrender to the authority of one individual, as in the presidential system, is dangerous for democracy.
• The over-centralisation of power in one individual is something we have to guard against. Those who argue in favour of a presidential system often state that the safeguards and checks are in place: that a powerful President can be stalled by a powerful legislature. But if the legislature is dominated by the same party to which the President belongs, a charismatic President or a “strong President” may prevent any move from the legislature.

         The presidential system’s reputation in India is sullied because its name became associated with an autocrat. How exactly does the American structure make it impossible for the president to become a dictator?

• First, there is the federal structure. The state governments are genuinely sovereign. They cannot be controlled, even by the combined forces of Congress and the president.
• Second, the executive, legislative and judiciary are not just separate in powers but in institutions. Each institution derives its legitimacy directly from the people, not from another branch.
• Third, each institution is balanced with others. In the legislature, the balance is between the House and the Senate, and then with the president. In the judiciary it is with the executive and legislature, and with the states. The executive is balanced with the Senate with regard to treaties and appointments.
• Lastly, the people hold direct sway over them all. They elect the legislative and the executive branches separately.

Need for a shift:

         Our parliamentary system is a perversity only the British could have devised: to vote for a legislature in order to form the executive. It has created a unique breed of legislator, largely unqualified to legislate, who has sought election only in order to wield executive power. There is no genuine separation of powers: the legislature cannot truly hold the executive accountable since the government wields the majority in the House. The parliamentary system does not permit the existence of a legislature distinct from the executive, applying its collective mind freely to the nation’s laws.

• For 25 years till 2014, our system has also produced coalition governments which have been obliged to focus more on politics than on policy or performance. It has forced governments to concentrate less on governing than on staying in office, and obliged them to cater to the lowest common denominator of their coalitions, since withdrawal of support can bring governments down. The parliamentary system has distorted the voting preferences of an electorate that knows which individuals it wants but not necessarily which parties or policies.
• Besides, India’s many challenges require political arrangements that permit decisive action, whereas ours increasingly promote drift and indecision. We must have a system of government whose leaders can focus on governance rather than on staying in power.

Concerns in the Indian context:

           The notion that the presidential system could lapse into dictatorship took root first during Indira Gandhi’s Emergency in the mid-1970s. It was widely believed that she wanted to adopt the presidential form of government to further her own autocratic reign.   

          The fallacy that the presidential system has autocratic tendencies, however, still prevails.

Why Presidential system may not be suitable for India?

• A diverse country like India cannot function without consensus-building. This “winner takes it all” approach, which is a necessary consequence of the presidential system, is likely to lead to a situation where the views of an individual can ride roughshod over the interests of different segments.
• The other argument, that it is easier to bring talent to governance in a presidential system, is specious. Besides, ‘outside’ talent can be brought in a parliamentary system too. On the other hand, bringing ‘outside’ talent in a presidential system without people being democratically elected would deter people from giving independent advice to the chief executive because they owe their appointment to him/her.
• Those who speak in favour of a presidential system have only the Centre in mind. They have not thought of the logical consequence, which is that we will have to move simultaneously to a “gubernatorial” form in the States. A switch at the Centre will also require a change in the States.

Way ahead:

         However, a switchover to the presidential system is not possible under our present constitutional scheme because of the ‘basic structure’ doctrine propounded by the Supreme Court in 1973 which has been accepted by the political class without reservation, except for an abortive attempt during the Emergency by Indira Gandhi’s government to have it overturned. The Constituent Assembly had made an informed choice after considering both the British model and the American model and after Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had drawn up a balance sheet of their merits and demerits. To alter the informed choice made by the Constituent Assembly would violate the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution.

Conclusion:

          The system of government under which man lives is fundamental to his being. Government is behind every evil in society, and every virtue. It shapes a society’s character. A good government allows individuals to become honest and virtuous; a bad one makes them wicked and corrupt. A system of government, therefore, isn’t simply a matter of man’s prosperity or liberty; it is also a matter of his morality. For a nation to prosper, its political system must foster a national vision, ensure fairness and encourage participation. When a nation has vision, when its citizens’ efforts are fairly rewarded and when there are opportunities for participation, the nation rises. Hence, an informed debate is necessary in this regard.

SIMULTANEOUS ELECTIONS: WILL THIS BE GOOD FOR INDIA?

        The idea of holding elections simultaneously to Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies is recently in the news after it got a push from Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In this article let us discuss the concept of simultaneous elections, its advantages, disadvantages, feasibility, and other related issues.

What is meant by simultaneous elections?

• It refers to holding elections to Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies simultaneously, once in a five year.
• At present, elections to Lok Sabha and to all State Legislative Assemblies are not being held simultaneously.
• Sometimes, elections to some State Legislative Assemblies may happen together with the elections to Lok Sabha. For example, in 2014, elections to State assemblies of Andhra Pradesh, Odisha and Sikkim were held along with elections to Lok Sabha.

 

The idea of simultaneous elections

• The idea of simultaneous elections is not new to India. In 1951-52, the first general election to the Lok Sabha was held simultaneously with all State Assemblies. This practice of simultaneous elections continued till the general election of 1967.
• This practice got disrupted due to premature dissolution of some State Legislative Assemblies in 1968. Lok Sabha itself dissolved prematurely in 1970.
• As a result, the elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies are being held separately.
• The idea of simultaneous elections was floated long back by former deputy Prime Minister of India, LK Advani.
• In Recent times, the idea got support from President and Prime Minister. President Pranab Mukherjee has endorsed the idea by mentioning it in his address to the joint session of the parliament ahead of the budget session.
• Reports of Law commission and the Parliamentary standing committee have also favored simultaneous elections.

Advantages of simultaneous elections

• The cost of an election has two components – one, expenditure incurred by the Election Commission and two, expenditure incurred by the political parties. A large number of government employees and public buildings are diverted from their regular responsibilities for election duties. Supporters of the simultaneous elections argue that it will reduce election expenditure in terms of finance and reduce diversion of human resources for election duties.
• Model Code of Conduct (MCC) comes into operation during election season. MCC is seen as an obstacle to the government service delivery mechanism. Simultaneous elections may reduce such disruption.
• During elections, political convenience takes precedence over public interest. To lure voters, political parties concede to popular demands without any consideration to public interest. Simultaneous elections reduce such opportunity for political parties.
• Simultaneous election promotes national perspective over the regional perspective. This is important for the unity of the country.
• Since it promotes national perspective, simultaneous elections strengthen national parties. This reduces mushrooming growth of political parties based on narrow vote bank politics.
• Simultaneous elections bring States on par with the Center. If the elections are to be held simultaneously once in five years, the elected state governments cannot be dismissed easily. This reduces the anomalies created by the Article 356 (President’s Rule) of the Indian constitution and hence, it strengthens federalism.
• The simultaneous election once in five years provides stability to the governments. It allows the government to take difficult and harsh decision in larger public interest.

Arguments against simultaneous elections

• Simultaneous elections may reduce the expenditure incurred by the Election Commission. But there is no guarantee that expenditure of the political parties will reduce. Political parties may spend entire fund at once rather than in phases.
• Center and States are equal and sovereign within their jurisdiction. Simultaneous elections may reduce the importance of state elections. Thus it affects the concept of federalism.
• Article 83(2) and Article 172 of the Constitution requires that the Lok Sabha and State legislatures be in existence for five years from the date of its first meeting, “unless dissolved earlier”. Simultaneous elections ignore this phrase, as there would be no opportunity to dissolve Lok Sabha or State Assemblies.
• A government can be in power as long as it enjoys the confidence of Parliament. Simultaneous elections can work only if governments last for a fixed tenure of five years regardless of confidence of Parliament. It negates the concept of ‘no confidence motion’ – an important tool for legislative control over the executive.
• Elections are an important part of representative democracy. Simultaneous elections with fixed tenure of five years curtail people’s right to express their confidence or displeasure on the government.
• Simultaneous elections will relegate local issues or issues of state importance to the background. This completely ignores the diversity of the country.
• Holding simultaneous election once in five years may also face logistical challenges. For the free and fair conduct of the elections, security forces need to be deployed in large numbers. Given the current strength of security personnel, this may be a challenging task.

Some constitutional questions

      Holding simultaneous elections also poses some constitutional questions, which need to be answered. They are,

• To implement the idea, the tenure of some of the State Assemblies needs to be curtailed. How to do it, when the government enjoys the confidence of the legislature?
• How to preserve simultaneity in the event of a vote of no confidence or President’s rule?
• Article 83(2) and Article 172 of the Constitution requires that the Lok Sabha and State legislatures be in existence for five years from the date of its first meeting, “unless dissolved earlier”. This makes it clear that constitution does not guarantee fixed terms to the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies. Simultaneous elections are not possible without fixed tenure.

Shekhawat solution

• The former vice-president Bhairon Singh Shekhawat proposed a solution. He called for a review of provisions of the no-confidence motion.
• He suggested that no-confidence motion must mandatorily be accompanied by an alternative government formation plan. This prevents premature dissolution of Lok Sabha on account of political instability.
• But critics point out that, this solution will take away people’s right to elect or dismiss a government.

Various reports

• 79^th report of the parliamentary standing committee on Law and Justice recommended a two-phase election schedule – one concurrent with Lok Sabha elections, the second in the mid-term of the Lok Sabha.
• The report also recommended that in order to hold early elections to Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies, one of two conditions must be met: (i) a motion for an early general election must be agreed to by at least two-thirds of all members of the House; or (ii) a no-confidence motion must be passed by the House, and with no alternative government being confirmed within 14 days of passing a confidence motion.
• The report concluded that such a reform was “important for India if it is to compete with other nations in developmental agenda on real time basis as a robust, democratic country.”

• Law Commission of India in its 170^th report (1999) recommended simultaneous elections to Lok Sabha and State Legislative. It suggested that elections to the legislative assemblies, whose term ends six months after the general elections to Lok Sabha, can be clubbed together. However, the results of such elections can be declared at the end of the assembly’s tenure.
• The Election Commission also extended its in-principle support for the simultaneous elections.

Impact on voter behavior

• Studies show that simultaneous elections will have a significant impact on voter’s behaviour. An analysis by IDFC institute shows that on average, there is a 77 percent chance that the Indian voter will vote for the same party for both the State and Centre when elections are held simultaneously.
• In such cases, the national issues and national parties take precedence over issues of state importance and small regional parties.

A case for frequent elections

• Frequent elections enhance political accountability. It keeps politicians on their toe.
• Local issues, state issues, and national issues do not get mixed up. Staggered election cycle gives people an opportunity to distinguish between these issues.
• Elections create a large number of work opportunity for the people.

Conclusion

         As discussed above the idea of simultaneous elections has Advantages as well as difficulties in implementation. Solutions should be found to specific problems.

• The model code of Conduct shouldn’t be stretched too long. There should be clear guidelines on do’s and don’ts for the government.
• To curb election expenditure, alternative ways such as reforms in the expenditure of political parties and state funding of political parties could be discussed.

       There are various ifs and buts before the idea of simultaneous elections may finally be implemented. The Constitution may need to be amended. But care should be taken, such that simultaneous elections will not undermine federalism and diversity of the country.

VOTE AT 16, WHY NOT?

       Age 16, why can’t it be sweet 16 for democracy too? There is growing debate across the world on the idea of lowering the voting age to 16. Some call it a disruptive move while others opine it would usher in a vibrant democracy. 

        The world is changing. In New Jersey, you can buy alcohol at 21 and cigarettes at 19, join the army at 17, have sex at 16 and be tried in courts as an adult at 14. Belgium youngsters can get sozzled legally at 16, reports The Economist.  

       Only when you have turned 18 can you vote. Why? It seems perplexing. Expanding education, improved IQ levels, increasing awareness due to exposure to media and intense interaction on social media are making this generation smarter. Thus, the demand for lowering the voting age gains credence. 

       However, critics contend that at 16 and 17, one is too immature to vote.  Voting is compulsory in some countries. There is even a similar demand in India too. Instead of such authoritarian solutions to increase the voter participation, it is much better to lower the age as many more would vote to make the democracy more representative.

       There are already such experiments with lowering age. For instance, in Scotland, even those at 16 were also allowed to vote in the referendum for independence held in 2014. Interestingly, around 75 per cent of them participated in the plebiscite compared to 54 per cent of 18 to 24 years old indicating greater enthusiasm among new voters. Similarly, Austria permitted 16-year-olds to vote in all elections in 2007. 

       The experience in Austria was also similar to that of Scotland. Thus, even this limited international experience with lowering the voting age is encouraging. 

        In fact, young men and women learn about how the democracy and its institutions like government function, right in their school days. Voting can be a practical expression of this theoretical exposure. Shunning gerontocracy can further deepen democracy. 

        India enjoys demographic dividend. This demographic dividend should enrich democracy too as millennials vote.
In fact, millennials are better educated than the earlier generations. They may be less vulnerable to the empty political rhetoric dished out by cynical politicians. 

        They are more enterprising and less conformist. They nurture an attitude to question than to reconcile. Such activism makes the democratic process more robust. 

        However, critics feel that millennials perceive voting not as a duty or passion. They are more trivial and less responsible. They can even be indecisive and more impressionistic.

         But, such outlandish fears are nothing new. Similar concerns were voiced when voting age was last lowered three decades ago.  The voting age in India was changed from 21 to 18 in 1988 through the Sixty-first Amendment to the Constitution. India of 2017 is completely different from India of 1988. 

         Underestimation of young people's capabilities is a disservice to democracy. Young people are less likely than adults to align themselves with political parties thus encouraging independent political behaviour.  The present-day youths are well-versed with technologies and comparatively better informed. It’s at least time to debate and experiment.