The ‘who’s who’ of India`s political fraternity together with business leaders met on midnight of 30th June at the Central Hall of the Indian Parliament to usher in the much awaited GST (Goods and Services Tax) on which the nation’s best brains have toiled since the past 11 years, after P. Chidambaram proposed it in April 2006. Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi and his team gave it a catchy slogan: ‘One Nation, One Tax.’ On the day of the programme, the PM aptly compared replacement of multiple tax regimes with one GST regime to the Iron Man of India, Sardar Patel’s efforts to consolidate over 565 princely states into one Indian nation, soon after Independence.
One nation, one election?
PM Modi has been very good at coining attractive phrases. Last year, after he felt the need for reforming the parliamentary system’s frequent elections, Modi formulated a catchy slogan: ‘One nation, one election’. He called for a national debate on the subject. This was also approved by President Pranab Mukherjee.
As a matter of fact, this is not a new idea, as it was also placed before the nation by former PM Atal Behari Vajpayee. While speaking at the golden jubilee celebrations of the Election Commission of India (ECI), he had said: “A fixed tenure for our Parliament and State Legislatures is essential for our democratic system to mature and deliver good governance.” Prior to him, the former Indian President, K. R. Narayanan had also aired similar views.
However, opposing views have been expressed by politicians mainly of regional parties which are now in power, like the Trinamool Congress (TMC) in West Bengal, the AIADMK in Tamil Nadu or Biju Janata Dal (BJD) in Orissa. They feel that if all elections are held simultaneously through the nation, voters might be carried away by the campaign issues raised by the national parties.
In my opinion, most significantly, the proposed change of giving a fixed term to the directly elected bodies in states and at the federal level, cuts at the very fundamental principles governing the parliamentary form of government. In a parliamentary system, the executive is a committee of the legislature; hence, the legislature can always threaten the executive with a ‘no-confidence motion’ to enforce the executive’s political accountability and responsiveness.
However, the Parliament’s right to move a ‘no-confidence motion’ against the cabinet in theory is balanced by the executive’s right to threaten the lower house with dissolution before its term ends. If you provide a fixed term to the elected house, it amounts to making it hyper-powerful, as the lower house can remove the cabinet, but the cabinet cannot threaten to cut short the tenure of the elected house by dissolution of it. It will essentially provide for legislative dictatorship.
The presidential system
A fixed tenure to the executive and legislature is the basic feature of the presidential system. However, in India, there is a feeling that the presidential system may lead to dictatorship. In my opinion that is erroneous, because Indira Gandhi turned even the Indian parliamentary system into a dictatorship – at least during the National Emergency (June 1975-March 1977).
Hence, when Barrister A. R. Antulay in the 1980s publicly proposed the introduction of the presidential system, after Indira Gandhi was re-elected early in 1980 with a decisive mandate, many suspected his intentions. This was in light of the later admission by Sanjay Gandhi that while imposing National Emergency they had thought of not holding elections for perhaps even 20 years! Many advocates of the presidential system then, like the late eminent lawyer Nani Palkhivala or this author, argued that the time for the switchover was not ripe.
Today, some may feel, and rightly so, that a switch over to the presidential system might be a better option to meet the challenges posed by frequent elections or political instabilities in our parliamentary system; but there are also many in this country, who might even now fear the proposed ‘One nation one election’ as a precursor to an eventual switch over to the presidential system.
Thus, for instance, when the NDA-I led by then PM Vajpayee proposed appointment of a commission to review the Constitution and proposed the name of a former judge of Supreme Court, Venkatachaliayya, the latter laid a condition that he would accept the appointment only if the PM gave an assurance to him that the purpose of the constitutional review was not to propose a presidential system!
The middle path
Hence, to ensure that history does not repeat itself on this subject, Prime Minister Modi could adopt a via media to achieve the nation’s goals of safeguarding the Indian democracy, give it the much needed stability, reduction of frequent elections and strengthen the government to provide for good governance.
Two steps can be taken: First, make the Upper House, at both the federal and state level, elected directly by the people. Second, experiment with direct election of governors with a fixed term in the states as providers of leadership, with a council of ministers working to implement the governors’ policies. Finally, if the nation is happy with the efficacy of the above measures, the nation could discuss the switching over to a presidential form of government.
In the American presidential system – not to be imitated – it is said: From the President to the dog catcher, all are elected on the same day. Such a system, with a fixed tenure for the executive and the legislature, gives a nationally elected president enough time to serve the people, without worrying constantly about retaining his position till the next election. This form is better suited to promote democracy and through it, good governance, in a caste-ridden multilingual, multicultural, multiethnic, multiregional and multi-religious nation like India. Then PM Modi might say: ‘India: One Nation, One President’!
[/column][column size=”4/5″]
Dr. Kamath
Dr. Kamath was a Professor of Politics in Mumbai University; currently he is Chairman and Hon. Director, VPM’s Centre for International Studies (Regd.) affiliated with University of Mumbai. After his retirement, he did a UGC funded project on India switching over to a Presidential System. [/column]