Presidential System for India?

IN NEWS:

            Congress MP Dr Shashi Tharoor has opined that India should change to the Presidential system of government.

WHAT IS PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM:

• The Presidential system is a form of government in which the president is the chief executive and is elected by the people.
• The system finds its origin in the American constitution. In this system, all three branches: executive, legislative, and judiciary – are constitutionally independent of each other, and no branch can dismiss or dissolve any other. 
• The President is responsible for enforcing laws, the legislature for making them, and the courts for judging.
• The President governs with the help of a cabinet or a smaller body called ‘Kitchen Cabinet’, which consists of non-elected members.

PRESIDENTIAL VS PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM:

WHY INDIA CHOSE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM:

In the Constituent Assembly, K T Shah favoured the adoption of the presidential system in India. However, the founding fathers preferred the British parliamentary system because:

• Familiarity with the system: A system similar to the Parliamentary form has been in existence in India since the early 1900s and the constitution makers were familiar with this.
• Preference to More Responsibility: The makers preferred British Parliamentary system over American Presidential system as the former offered more responsibility.
• To avoid Legislative-Executive conflicts: Conflicts between the legislature and the executive are bound to occur in the presidential system. But India’s infant democracy could not afford to take the risk of a perpetual conflict between the two organs of the government.
• Nature of Indian Society: India is one of the most heterogeneous States and most complex plural societies in the world. Hence, the Constitution-makers adopted the parliamentary system as it offers greater scope for giving representation to various section, interests and regions in the government.

MERITS OF PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM:

• Stable government: The President or his cabinet does not depend on the mercy of the majority legislators for their continuity and survival in office. This ensures a stable government, free of political defection or multiparty coalition.
• More legitimacy in leadership: The President is usually elected through a direct mandate. In terms of democracy, this makes the president’s authority more legitimate as he is elected directly by the people as oppose to being appointed indirectly.
• Continuity of policies: As there is certainty in the tenure of the government, the Presidential system is conductive for the formulation and implementation of long-term policies.
• Strict separation of power: The separation of powers in a democracy is vital to prevent abuse of power and to safeguard freedom for all. The Presidential system of government upholds the letter and spirit of the theory of separation of powers.
• Government by experts: The president’s cabinet is not made of legislators but of any individuals considered able by the president. Hence, the President has the power to choose expert talent.
• Speed and decisiveness: Presidents usually have stronger constitutional powers allowing them to spearhead reform and enact change swiftly. Moreover, the cabinet members do not have to devote any time to parliamentary work or party activities, thereby improving the efficiency of cabinet.

DEMERITS OF PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM:

• Conflict between legislature and executive: Separation of powers tends to create gridlock and stalemates within the Presidential system. This is frequent when the President or his party lacks majority in the Legislative. For instance, President continues to veto bills that the legislature ratifies, impeding government from passing laws.
• Authoritarianism: Because of the overarching power given to one person, presidential systems could quickly transform into authoritarian regimes if circumstances permit. Also, the centralization of authority could lead to the president becoming a more influential figure in society and the media.
• Unaccountable government: Since the executive is independent of the legislature, there is no effective means to assure responsibility in the exercise of power. Also, fixed term for president may make him unresponsive to public opinion. Thus, it creates a government unaccountable to its actions.
• Encourages nepotism: Since the President can choose executives as per his will, it gives rise to the spoils system where people close to the president (relatives, business associates, etc.) get roles in the government. This can potentially lead to corruption and crony capitalism.
• Narrow representation: The executive consists of one person or a small group chosen by him. Hence, decisions taken by them does not take into account the diversity of the nation.

SHOULD INDIA SWITCH TO PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM:

YES:

• Flaws of existing system: The present system of coalition governments have forced governments to focus more on politics than on policy or performance. Unqualified legislators, chosen based on their winnability in elections than on their ability, have led to deteriorating parliamentary culture in India.
• Address critical issues: A system of directly elected chief executive, elected for a fixed term of office, free from coalition politics and with clearly defined authority in their respective domains – would permit India to deal more efficiently with its critical economic and social challenges.
• More acceptable leadership: Any politician with aspirations to rule India as President will have to win the support of people beyond his or her home turf; he or she will have to reach out to different groups, interests, and minorities.
• Ill-founded fear of autocracy: The Emergency period demonstrated that even a parliamentary system can be distorted to permit autocratic rule. Also, the parliamentary system does not permit the existence of a legislature distinct from the executive. Most bills are drafted by the executive, and the ruling party whips to ensure its unimpeded passage.  Hence, the leader of the ruling party wields supreme power.
• More powers to voters: Indian voter will be able to vote directly for the individual he or she wants to be chosen as a head rather than a party. Also, at the end of a fixed period of time, the public would be able to judge the individual’s performance in office.

NO:

• Basic structure doctrine: Parliamentary system is a part of the basic structure. Hence, unless the Supreme Court changes its mind, any changes in the present system is not possible.
• Diversity of India: A diverse country like India cannot function without consensus-building. This Presidential system is likely to lead to a situation where the views of an individual is considered over the interests of different segments.
• Including expert talent is still possible: Talent has been coming into the parliamentary system with the added safeguard of democratic accountability of elections. C.D. Deshmukh, T.A. Pai, Dr Manmohan Singh, M.G.K. Menon and Raja Ramanna are examples.
• Multi-Party system: India’s fragmented polity, with dozens of political parties in the fray, makes a U.S.-style Presidential system impossible. Hence, deadlocks will be more frequent and could cripple the country.   
• Potential for corruption: Allegations of corruptions and crony capitalism has marred the Indian political arena for long. The spoils system in the presidential form will only encourage this tendency.
• Role of divisive politics: Caste and communal considerations play a big role in Indian elections. Hence, it is difficult to assume that the president will choose his cabinet based purely on considerations of merit.

WAY FORWARD:

• The causes for the political malaise in India are manifold. The problem lies not with the parliamentary system but with the political culture of the country.
• What India needs is not a change in the governance system, but a new political culture. This can be created by reforming and plugging loopholes in the existing system.
• The changes should include strengthening grassroot democracy, attracting women and youth into politics, ensuring transparency in governance, reviewing the powers of speakers and governors, revisiting the need of anti-defection law, limiting election expenditure of political parties and ensuring timely delivery of justice.  

PRACTICE QUESTION:

Q. Pluralist democracy is India’s greatest strength, but its current manner of operation is our major weakness. In this light, critically examine the need to adopt Presidential system in the country?