All
the leading candidates are making the right noises – NaMo about
governance, RaGa about empowerment, and ArKe about corruption.
But
none is talking about how this will happen. To be fair, NaMo has some
credibility of having worked inside the system. And ArKe will soon
get it, once he comes back to governing and stays away from the
political gimmickry.
However,
what India lacks today, in my opinion, is an unambiguous
constitution. Even with NaMo having been anointed as the prime
ministerial candidate of BJP, there are possibilities of that not
happening. How so? Because, all NaMo is going to be is a Member of
Parliament. There are no guarantees that he will be the prime
minister. Consider a scenario where the NDA falls short of a few
seats to the majority. And whoever decides to support them at that
time, puts some conditions and there could be another 'consensus'
prime ministerial candidate that emerges. NaMo can then go back to
governing Gujarat, be a minister in the central government, or just
be a (right honorable) Member of Parliament, with a lot of nuisance
value.
Unlike
the British or German precedence, the leader of the party does not
necessarily become the prime minister (the current Sonia and MMS
scenario). Also, unlike the convention, the MPs choosing the prime
minister is just on paper – secret ballots and competition is
unheard of in the past 65 years of the republic. And moreover, there
is a precedence of a remote control, right from the Nehru vs. Patel
choice.
Unlike
the French, the President is just a titular head, doing any 'real'
work only in the case of a hung parliament. There is no question of
co-habitation (early age of the fifth republic), and no bifurcation
in terms of the president managing the external affairs, where as the
prime minister responsible for internal affairs.
So,
what does it mean for India? Chaos and imbroglio is the order of the
day! Just think of the instability the short term governments of
Gujral and Deve Gowda caused. Without any mandate, popular sentiment,
and logical reason, these went down in the history as the prime
ministers. Unless you are preparing for a quiz, you would not
remember these names; and perhaps the even shorter premierships of
Charan Singh and Chandra Shekhar.
So,
again, what does it mean for India?
I
think a radical constitutional reform is really required. There are
several way of doing this, and I will hazard an opinion on this....
First
and foremost, there needs to be a better roles and responsibilities
definition for the President and the Vice President. Keeping a 300
room lodge warm, should not be one of them (but we will pick up that
topic some other time)!
Secondly,
the Rajya Sabha really needs to function as a council of sates and
not a backdoor entry for failed politicians. In the modern era, the
sates have a more assertive role in the overall development, and
their voice needs to be heard. Why not model Rajya Sabha on the
American Senate – directly elected representatives, same number
from each state.
Also,
the Rajya Sabha will have a more active role in policy definition
rather than only rubber stamping the bills that originate in Lok
Sabha. And as this house cannot be dissolved, rather since one-third
members retire every two years, it will contribute to policy
formation better than Lok Sabha, which is more likely to give in to
short term gains. In fact, the Rajya Sabha should be the final
authority on the bills and legislation.
To
protect the conflict of interest, a Rajya Sabha member cannot be a
minister in the government. The council is in session 12 months a
year (of course with reasonable breaks and vacations), and its sole
job is to provide policy oversight.
The
Lok Sabha can be as it is today (of course, no free meals or phone
calls etc.). Let the government be only responsible to the Lok Sabha.
Prime Minister can only be from the Lok Sabha. The Lok Sabha should
also meet more often – at least fortnight long sessions every
month.
Just
as the Rajya Sabha cannot be dissolved, it cannot pass no-confidence
motions against the government. But Rajya Sabha can censure the
government. This way, Rajya Sabha cannot have arbitrary dismissive
powers on the government.
Separation
of Legislation and Executive should also be better defined. While a
Lok Sabha member can be a minister, s/he along with the chief
secretary of the particular department, should be answerable to
corresponding committee in the Rajya Sabha and the committee in turn
answerable to the entire Rajya Sabha. The cabinet should be entirely
constituted of the Lok Sabha. However, each cabinet decision should
be ratified by both the houses, with each house having veto powers.
These
are just some thoughts. As I said, there could be other better ways
of doing this. But not doing this will only further push us in the
abyss.
