|
By Pradeep S Mehta
India's Westminster-type
government is struggling with coalition woes
At a recent meeting in Kolkata,
finance minister Pranab Mukherjee threw up his hands for not
being able to present a bold Budget because of coalition
politics. Indeed, Mamata Banerjee of the Trinamool Congress,
a coalition partner, has been a thorn in the side of the UPA.
She enjoys a veto on nearly
everything that the government wishes to do. If such are the
compulsions of coalition politics, should we not think of
other models of a government? A system that will build
firewalls against irrational, partisan and pork-barrel
politics resulting in instability and policy paralysis.
India has accepted the
Westminster model of parliamentary democracy, which is now
proving to be an unworkable method of running a government
smoothly. We do not have a two-party polity in our country
unlike in the US and UK (except its recent coalition
government). As time flies by, we will have more regional
and small parties dictating policies at the Centre as well.
What can we do to evolve a more
stable democratic system in our country? One model is the
German system, where parliament gets a fixed tenure of four
years constitutionally, whether or not one party has a
majority.
Disparate parties have to come
together to form and run a government on an agreed common
agenda. Currently, the government is a coalition among
Christian Democrats and Free Democrats. During 2005-09,
Christian Democrats, Social Democrats and Greens were
partners in the government as a Grand Coalition, because
they belonged to different corners of the triangle. The
government lasted its full term.
Other than the stable
parliamentary system, the German electoral system too is
unique. Half the seats in the parliament are directly
elected. The other half is indirectly elected on the basis
of votes garnered by parties contesting elections.
For such nominated seats, parties usually select competent
people but not losers. For any party to get indirect seats
in parliament, it needs at least 5% of the total votes cast
in a national election. This prevents smaller parties from
coming into parliament.
To try and import such a system in India is a Herculean
task, because a constitutional amendment will never pass
muster with many small parties in the parliament.
Assuming that we think of a grand coalition between the
Congress and BJP, the two largest parties who agree on many
economic issues, is also a difficult task because of huge
ideological differences. In Germany, political parties do
not have such wide ideological or even policy differences,
and are more mature.
As an aside, the proposal to reserve seats for women has not
passed muster because of opposition by smaller parties. Yet,
even in Pakistan, a proportional representation system
exists to ensure that women and minorities get into the
lower houses of legislature through nomination.
Parties select women representatives in state assemblies and
national parliament on the basis of seats won, around 25% of
all representatives.
Pakistan's foreign minister,
Hina Rabbani Khar is one such nominated member of the lower
house. We should also be able to do this, especially when
women's reservation has been wrought into local government
through Constitutional amendments.
In our own local government,
village sarpanches are directly elected by the whole
electorate since the panchayati raj system was introduced in
1950s. Since 1996, mayors are also being directly elected by
cities. States have done it gradually.
Why can't we elect the national president and state
governors directly? In November 2011, after 14 individuals
wrote an anguished letter to the Prime Minister on
malgovernance, this newspaper ran a debate on an agenda for
renewal. One commentator suggested that we should start a
dialogue to move toward a presidential system, as a way
forward.
Such a system will have multiple
benefits. The head of the national or state government can
appoint people as ministers, who will not need to dip into
the till for fighting elections. Such a system will help
governance hugely. A similar thing happens even in India
whenever there is presidential rule in the states and the
governor appoints competent people as advisers with
ministerial responsibilities, though usually for a short
term.
The system will also promote
national integration, critical for India that now faces
demands for more federalism. The elected person will have to
think and act for all the people and not just their own
constituencies or states.
Indeed, the person will have to
heed her own party, but that will not influence the
decisions so acutely. Elections to states and the parliament
will continue to provide the checks on the CEOs. It will
also help legislatures to last the full term.
With stability assured,
politicians will not be under constant pressure to raise
funds for the next elections. Elected politicians will have
a greater say in policy and Budget-making through
legislative committees and also give them the opportunity to
collect rents or favours by their interventions in the
legislative committees. That happens in both US and UK. If
such an opportunity is not seen, then our politicians will
oppose any change.
Now is the opportune time tokick
off a debate for changing over from a Westminster model to a
presidential system. Electing a national sarpanch to get rid
of the cantankerous and retrogressive coalition political
system. Our children will never forgive us if we do not
start the process now, knowing that it will still take a few
years to bring about the change.
The author is secretary
general of CUTS International
This news can
also be viewed at: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/
|
