S P E C I A L  E D I T O R I A L

Why not a national debate?
By Hari Jaisingh

It is a pity that the crucial question of a constitutional review should have turned into a wordy duel between the President and the Prime Minister, in the process giving it political overtones. The issue here is not who is right and who is wrong. Each person has his viewpoint which is open to arguments and counter-arguments. Such an exercise generally tends to create bad blood which is surely not the intention of either the President or the Prime Minister while spelling out their thoughts on the desirability or otherwise of a constitutional review.

The President is a learned person. He is generally cautious and conservative in his approach to several issues and is known for his set views which cannot be dismissed offhand. In his speech to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Indian Constitution in New Delhi on Thursday, he quoted both Dr B.R. Ambedkar and Dr Rajendra Prasad to reiterate that the present Constitution is flexible enough to stand the test of time. However, the question here is not one of flexibility but one of dynamism of the voluminous statute to meet the changing needs of the situation as well as the hopes and aspirations of the people. What we are seeking is not a goody-goody instrument of governance but a forward-looking, dynamic document.

Of course, it is not for the President or the Prime Minister to decide in his individual capacity whether the Constitution has stood the test of time or not. This matter has to be examined objectively by a panel of eminent experts and see whether certain changes have to be brought about in the Constitution in the larger interests of the nation. In fact, we ought to treat the whole subject with an open mind and not in terms of party politics.

What makes Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee's proposition somewhat suspect is the fact of his belonging to a political party whose liberal and secular credentials still remain to be established. There was a time when Indira Gandhi toyed with the idea of a presidential form of government. She used Mr Vasant Sathe and Mr A.R. Antulay to canvass public support. But there were not many takers for the suggestion then because it was mooted under the shadow of the Emergency.

No wonder, whenever a proposition for a presidential form of government is put forward, it is seen against the backdrop of the Emergency. This need not be so. The problem with this country is that there is too much of politics and very little of transparency and accountability. Adopt any system. It is sure to falter because of the present-day adulterated political culture and the lack of integrity and character in the ruling elite.

For 50 years the nation has been under a parliamentary system. How effective has it been? Where has it gone wrong? What can be the nature of an alternative system, whether presidential or any other form? Has the existing framework been truly participative in nature? How about Centre-state ties? How potent are the grassroots units? How safe are individual liberties in the existing order? Is the balance of justice tilted in favour of the manipulative privileged class? Which constitutional provisions have been grossly misused? Do the present provisions reflect the people's changing expectations and priorities? These questions need to be examined dispassionately.

The President is surely right in raising the question "whether the Constitution has failed us or whether it is we who have failed the Constitution". Perhaps, in a setting of failures, such distinctions get blurred as far as the common man is concerned. Commonsense and rational thinking would surely, in the circumstances, demand a honest review of the failures, both in terms of the Constitution and of the persons so that proper correctives are applied to improve the system.

A review of the working of institutions or of the Constitution should not be seen with suspicion. It should be viewed rationally and with an open mind. This is what the spirit of democracy and liberal tradition demands. Of course, in any review exercise, the people will not like the Constitution's basic structure and core ideas to be tampered with. However, within the broad framework if certain improvements can be brought about to help meet the challenges the nation is faced with, these should not be subjected to political prejudices and fixations.

Fifty years is a long enough period to examine how and where we have failed or have not been able to move fast enough to earn for the country a pride of place in the comity of nations it richly deserves. In a way, it is good that Mr K.R. Narayanan and Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee have thrown up for debate to the people the subject of constitutional review. This provides the nation an opportunity to examine the question threadbare. The issue is critical. It should not be debated for the sake of debate. Nor should it be viewed in a partisan manner. The time has come that, as a nation, we begin to look forward while drawing inspiration from the best of Indian traditions and constitutional provisions.

Of course, the Constitution alone does not make or mar a nation's destiny. But a live document can make a difference not only in setting democratic standards but also in making the polity functionally efficient, competitive and democratically more liberal.