Towards better governance

By Satya Prakash Malaviya

AN alternative form of governance does notnecessarily mean the presidential system. To me it means improving the present parliamentary form, rather than replacing it. We have at present a parliamentary system. An alternative form of governance for our country, therefore, means any form of governance other than the parliamentary.

Our Constitution came into effect on January 26, 1950, after prolonged deliberations, and India became a democratic republic. A great deal of thought and consideration went into the decision. Before the debate in the Constituent Assembly, a Constitution committee was formed. This weighed all the pros and cons and all the advantages and disadvantages of the working of the Constitutions of various countries and finally favoured a parliamentary system with built-in responsibilities. In fact, Dr. Ambedkar clarified in the Constituent Assembly: "What the Draft Constitution has proposed is the parliamentary system".

The Constituent Assembly gave to the people of India a federal Constitution with a facade of parliamentary democracy. Members in their wisdom and sagacity rejected the idea of a presidential system of government and opted for the Cabinet form of responsible government, known as the parliamentary system.

Unfortunately, our Constitu-tion suffers from certain defects. These need to be removed. It was under this Constitution that in 1975 the then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, forced the then President, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, to sign on the dotted line and impose internal Emergency on the country after her election to the Lok Sabha was declared null and void by a Judge of the Allahabad High Court and she was disqualified for a further period of six years from contesting any election. The fundamental rights were suspended and press censorship clamped. Thousands of political leaders and workers were thrown in jail and detained without trial under MISA and DIR.

Even after 50 years of freedom, half the population of illiterates of the world lives in India. More than 70 per cent of the people subsist below the poverty line. Yet we have not been able to develop a healthy two-party or three-party system to serve them properly. According to the Election Commission of India, we have presently seven national political parties, 33 state political parties and 612 registered unrecognised political parties. The present 12th Lok Sabha has 40 political parties, and in all likelihood their number may increase.

The anti-defection law has miserably failed to curb defections. It needs a drastic change. So also the election laws. Regrettably, the office of the Governor has become political. We should, therefore, provide for the impeachment of Governors in the Constitution. The framers of our Constitution may have never visualised that a time would come when the Chief Minister of a state would boast that, if arrested, he would run the state’s administration from inside the jail!

There is thus an urgent need to amend the Constitution to ensure better governance and for giving the people of our country a better deal. Many advocate a change over to the presidential form of government to achieve this end. But switching over from the parliamentary system to the presidential may well amount to changing the basic structure of the Constitution. That would then be open to judicial review.

At the same time, we have before us examples of President Idi Amin of Uganda, President Zia-ul-Haq of Pakistan, President Marcos of The Philippines and President Suharto of Indonesia. All of them did not voluntarily step down from their presidential offices on the basis of elections. They got removed from the scene only by the hand of death or by a coup. In sharp contrast, in our parliamentary system, Indira Gandhi was ousted from power in 1977 through elections. And, she was voted back to power in 1980. What is more, there is always the danger of a presidential system turning into a dictatorship.

We should not blame our parliamentary system of governance for India’s present ills. Is there any guarantee that the presidential system will be better?

The great socialist leader and patriot, Jayaprakash Narayan, who refused to join the Constituent Assembly, was clear that the Constitution would prove to be a dead letter. But that was not to be. Acharya Narendra Deva, too, did not join the Constituent Assembly as he felt that it did not reflect or represent the aspirations and the will of the people.

Thereafter, the Muslim League decided to walk out of the Constituent Assembly. Jayaprakash Narayan then said: "What remains of that body is no longer capable of drafting the Constitution of a free India". He added: "The only thing that now remains to be done is to tear up the agreement with the British, get out of the interim government and the Constituent Assembly and formally convene a representative Constituent Assembly elected by the people". He even wrote to Dr. Rajendra Prasad, President of the Constituent Assembly, and urged him to "dissolve the assembly because it was elected before Partition on a very restricted franchise and was, therefore, unrepresentative". He also asked him to convene a new assembly elected on the basis of adult franchise.

The demand for a representative assembly was not something made out of the blue. A meeting of the Congress workers of the then United Provinces (now Uttar Pradesh) held at Allahabad from October 10 to 12, 1933, adopted the following resolution: "The proper method of drawing up a Constitution and settling the form of government for a free India is for a Constituent Assembly elected on adult franchise and fully representative of the people of India, to be convened for the purpose".

True, two Socialist leaders, Damodar Swarup Seth and Phoolan Prasad Verma joined the Constituent Assembly. But this happened because they had filed their nominations before the Socialists decided to boycott the Constituent Assembly and the Congress Parliamentary Party refused them permission to withdraw. In fact, Damodar Swarup Seth moved an amendment before the Constituent Assembly on November, 1948, reflecting the views of the Socialists.

The resolution read: "Whereas the present Constituent Assembly was not elected on the basis of adult franchise and whereas the final Constitution of a free India should be based on the will of the entire people of India, this Constituent Assembly resolves that while it should continue to function as Parliament of the Indian Union, necessary arrangements should be made for convening a new Constituent Assembly to be elected on the basis of adult franchise and that the Draft Constitution prepared by the drafting committee be placed before it for its consideration and adoption with such amendments as it may deem necessary".

In moving his amendment, Damodar Seth said: "This assembly does not represent the entire people of India. This House cannot claim to represent the whole country. At the most, it can claim to represent that 15 per cent of the population of India which had elected the members to the provincial legislatures. The election, too, by virtue of which the members of the House are here was not a direct one. They are here by virtue of an indirect election. Eighty-five per cent of the people of our country are not represented in the House and have no voice here. Therefore, this House is not competent to frame a Constitution for the whole country. The Constitution is being framed by the people who are not the true representatives of the general masses".

In conclusion, I am totally opposed to the view that we should switch over to the presidential system as our parliamentary system is by and large doing well. However, I am equally clear that there is an urgent need to review the working of the Constitution and take a fresh look at it if we are serious about serving our people better on the basis of our experience of the past 50 years.

The anti-defection and election laws need a drastic change to

bring about a qualitative difference in the body politic