Lure of presidential system
Looking at what is happening in the US, it is surprising that the presidential system is being advocated in India. Serious efforts were made during Indira Gandhi’s prime ministership to switch over to the presidential system. And it could well have become a reality as not only did the Congress have a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament, but also had majority in nearly all state legislatures. Therefore, there would have been no difficulty in getting the requisite constitutional amendment passed for change over to the presidential system, as was seen in the series of other major amendments she brought about. I had written in my book, Indira Gandhi—An era of Constitutional Democracy, that there must not be another case in history anywhere in the world where such legislations were sponsored by the ruler and meekly passed by a mute, deaf and brute majority in Parliament (and state legislatures, in the case of constitutional amendments). India was lucky in having escaped this real possibility.
The debate in India about the presidential system arises mainly because of infirmities of the parliamentary system.
Several of Indira Gandhi’s supporters and well-wishers such as BK Nehru, the then High Commissioner of India in London, Vasant Sathe and AR Antulay had floated the idea of switching over to a presidential form of government which would have perpetuated her rule. Though she did not explicitly approve the idea, she did not stop her supporters from propagating it and canvassing support for it, which she could have done. BK Nehru’s account of his talk with the three tall leaders of the Congress at the time—Jagjivan Ram, Swaran Singh and YB Chavan—makes for sickening reading. Their response in essence was that if the PM wanted these changes to be made, they would support them. As Nehru wrote in his memoirs, Nice Guys Finish Second, ‘What they were really interested in was to find out whether the Emperor thought it was high noon or midnight.’ The response of Zail Singh, the then Punjab CM, was that whatever ‘Bibiji’ wanted was alright with him. The response of Bansi Lal, the then Haryana CM, was: ‘If you ask me, just make our sister President for life and there’s no need to do anything else.’ The CPI thought Indira was seeking the presidential system to give herself absolute power.
Such fears surface when a powerful figure with an all-India following and charisma emerges. With Modi’s popularity, oratory and mass following, there are apprehensions again that India may opt for a presidential system. Kumar Ketkar, MP, has written: ‘Who knows, perhaps plans are afoot to change our parliamentary democracy into an American presidential form. Already, we have become an elected autocracy. If the presidential system is adopted, then we will lose even the pretence of being a democracy.’ A Sreenivasa Reddy, writing in Khaleej Times, raises a question: What could be Modi’s game plan? Will he go down the road of Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Kim Jong-un?
However, there are some who believe that presidential system is more suited to India. Shashi Tharoor feels that under the presidential system, ‘The Indian voter will be able to vote directly for the individual he or she wants to be ruled by, and the President will truly be able to claim to speak for a majority of Indians rather than a majority of MPs.’ Thus, two Congress MPs have diagonally opposite views.
The preference for presidential system is primarily based on weaknesses and deficiencies of the parliamentary system. But the Supreme Court has declared parliamentary democracy a part of the basic structure of the Constitution which is unamendable. Therefore, the debate about the presidential system is academic. Also, in the present political configuration and complete polarisation, it is unlikely that such a constitutional amendment will be passed.
I have, in any case, serious doubts whether India should even consider adoption of the presidential system. The example of the US hardly inspires confidence. And Trump is not the only reason for it. His two predecessors, Nixon and George W. Bush, too, were in the same league. As for Trump, his conduct, particularly after the electoral defeat, has, for the first time in US history, raised doubts about peaceful transfer of power to the successor. After an agonising delay, his reluctant signing of the pandemic aid and spending package Bill, approved by the Congress and the Senate, and actions leading to total government shutdowns have raised doubts about the working of democracy. His gross misuse of power by granting pardon to scores of his party office-bearers, those convicted by courts and his close relatives raise serious questions about the rule of law. Trump’s conduct in office showed that the legislature had no control over his actions. One wonders who represents the US voters — the legislature or the President. Looking at the mess in the presidential election, and the tussle between the legislature and President, it is time the US takes a fresh look at its Constitution. At least in respect of holding national election, it can learn from India. In terms of public accountability and transparency, the parliamentary system is any day better and more suited to a country like India.
The debate in India about the presidential system arises mainly because of the infirmities of the parliamentary system. I had brought them out at length in my book, India’s Parliamentary Democracy on Trial. Parliament criticises all other agencies and institutions in the country but has never critically looked at its own failings. It is time Parliament commissions a study of its functioning by stakeholders and experts and acts on it without loss of time.
