On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 5:00 AM, Kiran K Karthikeyan < [email protected]> wrote:
> 2009/3/21 Nikhil Mehra <[email protected]> > > > I don;t know about this debate. I don't think it is even real. India > cannot > > have a Presidential system because I don't think this nation is capable > of > > a > > consensus candidate. The interests of the constituent states has to be > > represented at the centre because the power sharing arrangement in the > > Constitution as it stands is heavily biased in favor of the centre. > Greater > > power was not granted to the states at the time of independence because > > there was a genuine fear of fragmentation. > > > I agree that states have more power in the US, but not sure how that has a > bearing on the presidential system. If you have a presidential system and lesser power for the states then states have a lesser say in governance. Now, with a Parliamentary system, where we end up with coalition governments like it's going out of fashion, effectively regional entities have a substantial say in matters of governance. Is this good for the country? I wouldn't dismiss coalition governments outright. They have posed problems not on account of regionalism but because of ideology (The Left with the Congress) or petty politics looking for the limelight (Mamata di with the BJP). The latter hardly causes a substantial policy deviation. The former is a vital process that only lends further to a democracy because it gives a voice to a certain group in society whether we agree with them or not. > While a consensus candidate might be difficult, I think even the US > constitution foresaw this possibility and instituted the electoral college. > However, in most elections so far, the > electoral college members of a state have voted for the candidate that won > in that state. > Yes, we could have an electoral college, but what will be its composition? The US did not have anywhere near the ethnic variation that we did at the time of independence, and continue to have now. Also, in the US now there is immense diversity on account of immigration over generations, but the idenitities forged are not regional. They are racial and ethnic. So there is a lesser fear of rebellion against the Central authority where the demand is for sovereign control over territory, which territory can be historically traced to the group in question. I guess what I am saying that states in India can make a far stronger case for Statehood on the classical parameters of what constitutes a State than those in the US. > > What the presidential system (or something similar) does in my opinion, is > put a national campaign for presidential candidates beyond the scope of > most > regional parties. This would over time lead to a consolidation into a few > major national parties, and therefore to more stable governments. Laws are > still passed by the house where states have representation so I don't see > how their representation decreases under this system. I don't understand this aversion to coalition politics. Our best years of economic growth have had nothing but coaltion govts. Our nation was soporific in responding to the basic needs of the citizenry and we barely had a development vision when we had effectively single party rule. And coalition govts have been stable. Narasimha Rao, Vajpayee and the Congress have all lasted 5 years with a coalition govt. The issue for the center has not been a lack of stability, rather the fact that there are more constituencies that they have to answer to. And for me this makes for a more vibrant democracy. Even though states have representatives in Parliament, they would be toothless because they'd deprived of the No-Confidence Motion. A prez would have veto which quells regionalism. Impeachment under any prez system is a very difficult process. > > > Another advantage is the possibility for an independent candidate to run > for > elections and hold the highest office if he/she can mobilise the funds for > the campaign. Why is an independent candidate a good thing? He/she doesn't have an ideology. He/she has never had to engage in the political process in the past except for selfish interest. He's/she's never had to have the vision for a nation which is expected from the chosen few by political parties. What makes him or her ready to be head of state? And why is it good? > As we stand today, the comparitively more educated (and > richer) section of the Indian population hardly votes or rather can't make > a > real dent in the elections and instead get things done through bribes. Err.... the Presidential system will end bribery in India?? Right, And I'm late for my threesome with Nicole Scherzinger and Scarlett Johansonn. Nordic blonde and ethnic brunette - priceless. If the more educated sections in India do not vote, then I don't think they will suddenly because they have one man/woman to vote for. In fact, the numbers will be even worse against them. They are a minority and right now there are certain constituencies where they can elect a candidate solely on their voting power. That will be near impossible on a national scale election where they are a woeful minority. I think it will make them even more cynical about elections. > > However, a few thousand crores could be mobilised from this demographic by > the right candidate. Political parties can do this too. Looks like you're referring to an Obama-like model which essentially needs a strong vibrant personality. We havent had one in over a generation. The Presidential system would not change that. > Under the current system, an independent candidate > cannot possibly aspire to be PM. And this possibility would make most > parties clean up their act. If an independent is aspiring to the Presidency - the de jure and de facto head of state - he's not going to stay independent for too long. He may appoint a team of administrators across party lines but eventually he will be forced to forge his own identity and this will be the new reference point for party politics. He will lose his independence after gaining the Presidency. I don't see how this makes political parties clean up their act. Ross Perot ran for the US presidential office in '92 and he gave the > established parties quite a scare. > So? > > Thoughts? > Some more random thoughts. I think as a South India, Kiran (I'm presuming from the surname) you should be worried about the CHOM-isation of Indian politics under a Presidential model. There are way more Choms than south indians. Choms are north indians, by the way, for those who don't know. Common Headache Of Mankind (CHOM). This is what every single south Indian friend has called me since they day I arrived in law school. I've embraced it. Also, a bare reading of the Indian Consitution suggests that it is a Presidential system of governance. Executive power is vested in the President. Almost every major power vests in the President. It's just that Article 74 provides for a Council of Minister to be headed by a PM. In fact this is one of the very few places that a PM is even mentioned. However, this question was settled very early on by the SC in *Ram Jawaya Kapur* v. *State of Punjab*. The simple legal fiction introduced was that the President is bound by the aid and advice of the CoM/PM except for some very narrow powers (like granting clemency). Nikhil
