Part II – The Alternate

1. Part II – The Alternate Why did we opt for the British type of Parliamentary form of Democracy? Familiarity & Respect for the British system • Shri B.K. Nehru“Furthermore, the Constituent Assembly was dominated by lawyers trained solely in the British tradition and in the British system of Law, who constituted a substantial proportion of the membership of the Assembly. Their knowledge of Constitutional law was largely confined to the horizon of the British Constitution.” • Dr. K.M. Munshi – a member of the Constituent Assembly “We must not forget very important fact that, during the last one hundred years, Indian public life has largely drawn upon the traditions of British constitutional law. Most of us have looked to the British model as the best. ……. After this experience, why should we go back on the tradition that has been built over a hundred years and try a novel experiment.” Forum for Presidential Democracy

2. Forum’s Analysis Based on the study of Constitutions of leading liberal democracies such as British, French, German, U.S., Japanese, Australia etc. and based on our own performance of last six decades under the model of parliamentary democracy as adopted by us. Forum for Presidential Democracy

3. STABILITY - American Constitution Why did the Americans choose different system?They had much more familiarity with British Constitution than us (majority of first lot were British Immigrants)Apprehension whether the new country will have the prerequisitesfor evolution of a genuine 2 Party system?Answer :- No Reason :- While the first lot of settlers were mainly from Britain, in due course there would be Immigrants from various countries of Europe such as France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Holland, Portuguese etc. each having its own identity including that of language would prefer to have its own party and ultimately, might end up with 15 or 20 different parties. Forum for Presidential Democracy

4. Our similarity ! – Party Formation based on Language – Religion – Caste – Region Considerations • Punjab - AkaliDal • Andhra - Telugu Desam, TelanganaRashtriyaSamiti • Tamil Nadu - DMK / AIADMK / PDMK / MDMK • Maharashtra - ShivSena & now MNS • Kashmir - National Conference, P.D.P., • Goa - MaharastraGomantak Party • Nagaland - Nagaland People’s Front • Mizoram - Mizoram National Front etc. • Orrisa - BijuJanataDal • Jharkand - JharkandMuktiMorcha • Assam - AssomGanoParishad • U.P. /Bihar - Caste dominant B.S.P. (Dalit) Samajwadi Party / RJD (O.B.C. / Minority) • Evolved - a new system as democraticas the British • But assuring full stabilitywith all the checks & balances. Forum for Presidential Democracy

5. U.S.A Example • Impact of Presidential System on Party-formation • Presently 2 major political parties viz. Republics / Democrats • Time to time new parties formed • 1968 – Presidential Election Governor George Wallace founded American Independent Party and secured 13.5% votes in Presidential Elections • 1980 – Anderson contested as 3rd PartyCandidate secured – 6.6% votes • Both these parties virtually disappeared before next elections • Reasons • Little Impact on the final outcome of Presidential elections • No role to play after the elections Forum for Presidential Democracy

6. French Example • Between 1946 - 1958 – Parliamentary system existed like ours • 14 – Political Parties • Coalitions for sharing of Power. Differences and controversial fights between the parties. 26 Govts. in 12 years • New Constitution drafted by Degaulle ‘Presidential Form of Government’ approved by 79.2%of votes in 1958 • The total no. of parties kept on reducing since then • Presently – 4 parties Divided in 2 main coalitions Left & Right Forum for Presidential Democracy

7. Comparison with our system • Smaller parties able to play important roles after the elections • Sometimes virtually a kingmaker’s role • Jayalalitha – Had 21 members out of 542 in LokSabha – only 3.5% of total votes in the country. She virtually brought down Vajpayee Govt (1998 – 99). • DMK had its own way in demanding the portfolios. Inspite of Rs. 1,76,000 crores ($40 Billion) of telecom scam, DMK is still beyond question for the P.M. • ShivSena or Telugu Desam or DMK or AIADMK all are Kingmakers in their own way • Innumerable examples can be cited • The system encourages  Fragmentation  Survival of Smaller parties  Defections  Horse Trading Forum for Presidential Democracy

8. The words of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar sounds prophetic” (Memorandum to Constituent Assembly), “In view of the clashes of castes and creeds there is bound to be a plethora of parties and groups in the Legislature in India. If this happens, it is possible, nay certain, that under the Parliamentary System, Executive is bound to resign upon an adverse vote in the Legislature. India may suffer from the instability of the Executive. For it is the easiest thing for groups to align and realign themselves at frequent intervals and for pretty purpose and bring about the downfall of the Government. Constant overthrow of the Government is nothing short of anarchy. The American form of executive is an equally good type of a democratic and responsible form of the Government.” Forum for Presidential Democracy

9. Cabinet Composition / Functioning (U.S.A) • Member of Parliament cannot join Cabinet • President free to select the best talent • No vested interest of politicians • Once appointed full concentration on his job • Majority non-politicians / Hardcore professionals / Intellectuals / People of Eminence • Full-time dedicated for a particular job for full term • No distraction of party politics or spend time on the constituency or woo the voters • Not inclined to remain in limelight or waste time in attending public functions / self publicity for being elected • Not required to collect funds for themselves or for the party or to win the elections. • No need to please M.L.A.s / M.P.s Forum for Presidential Democracy

10. Presidential System (as adopted by the USA) Direct election of Executive Head of the Government (every 4 years) at City, State & National level Full stability of Government after being elected Maximum 2 terms for a President (8 years) Cabinet (Executive) separate from Legislature Senate (Legislature & Lower House) provided full power for checks & balances on President & Cabinet Legislature role well-defined Candidates elected by members of party in a free & fair election Forum for Presidential Democracy

11. Cabinet – Obama • Secretary of Energy - Renowned Physicist • Secretary of Treasury - Master’s degree in International Economics • Secretary of Education - Chief Executive of the Chicago Public Schools • Secretary of Labor- Graduate - California State Polytechnic University • Attorney General- Graduate - Columbia University & Columbia Law School; • Director of Central Intelligence Agency - Bachelor’s & Law from the University of Santa Clara • Secretary of Housing and Urban Development - Degrees in Public Administration & Architecture; • Commerce Secretary - Attended Yale University & Boston University Law School; • Secretary of Veterans Affairs- Has a career in the Army & was Chief of Staff • Secretary of State - Graduate - Wellesley & Law from Yale University; • National Security Advisor - Mastered the subtle art of coalition diplomacy during wartime. (Note: The above list is only indicative and not complete) Forum for Presidential Democracy

12. Cabinet – Clinton (1992-2000) • The Secretary of State :- Graduate from the Stanford Law School; • Secretary of Defence:- had worked in Pentagon with former Defence Secretary, Robert McNamara. Degrees from Yale, Oxford and MIT; • National Security Advisor :- Graduate of Harvard and Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs; • Director of Central Intelligence :- Law degree from Yale University; • Secretary of Health and Human Services :- Ex-Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin. Selected by Business Week as one of the top five managers in higher education; • Chairperson of the Council of Economic Advisers :- Professor of Economics at the University of California, Berkeley (Note: The above list is only indicative and not complete) Forum for Presidential Democracy

13. Legislation :- American system scores over us • Strong Committee system • Detailed analysis / reports on every legislation proposed. No party lines • Congress members duty bound to involve in legislative matters • After circulation of report – every member of Congress enjoys full freedom to vote • No whip issued by the Party • Several countries have also emulated American example and have now strong Committee system e.g. Australia, Germany and even Britain is now following this. Forum for Presidential Democracy

14. Action of a Committee on a Bill Members of Congress study the bill and in the process seek information and advice from a variety of sources before recommending action (The meaning of the word Congress means Assembly in English and in the USA it is used for Parliament including both the houses). Public hearings are held Bill is reported out favorably in original form (Rare) OR It is amended and reported favorably OR It is completely rewritten and reported favorably OR It is reported unfavorably A subcommittee is appointed to make a detailed analysis Committee Studies by experts from both government agencies and public organizations are received Research reports from Legislative References Service, Library of Congress are requested Congress House of Representatives or Senate Forum for Presidential Democracy

15. Effective Check on Corruption • Separationof executiveand the legislatureplay a vital role to check corruption. • The Congress has no vested interest as members do not form part of the cabinet. • They develop their own personality to stand against the President. • Party lines are veryloose on issues of corruption. • Opposition as well as President’s own party members free to take independent stand against any cabinet minister including the President. • President / Governor not obliged to have corrupt minister/s in their Cabinet • Candidate’s background scrutinized before induction in the cabinet Forum for Presidential Democracy

16. What are Forum’s views on Lokpal Bill? As per the earlier provisions of the Bill, Lokpal’s power was restricted only to recommend an action against a corrupt politician or a bureaucrat and the Government’s sanction was required to initiate action. The Government is now under pressure to have Lokpal as an independent authority empowered to initiate investigation & prosecution against any bureaucrat or politician for corruption without any interference including PM/CM or any Minister. This would certainly be a welcome relief. However, following the enthusiasm generated due to Anna Hazare’s fast, we must not forget that the appointment of Lokpal will not be the panacea for eradicating corruption. The most effective and the logical way to eradicate / minimize corruption is to appoint honest and capable people at top level i.e. Ministerial level in the first place and have a system of checks and balances and then only Lokpal should be a mechanism as a final recourse where still if there is a culprit, he must be caught and punished. Forum for Presidential Democracy

17. Checks & Balances • President • Legislature • Judiciary • Legislature power fully vests with the Congress • Choice of cabinet solely left to the President • Legislature has no vested interest in Cabinet as no member can form part of the cabinet • Independent voting on legislations irrespective of party lines • Legislators duty bound to involve in legislative matters • Congress fully empowered to defeat legislation even if proposed by the President. As a balance, President can veto on legislations not in line with his manifesto or thinking. But Senate can counter veto President’s veto with 2/3rd majority. Forum for Presidential Democracy

18. Opposition many times vote for the President and vice versa All important posts including ministers (secretaries) confirmation of Senate – a must Power to impeach President vests with the Senate President or Governor cannot remain in Power for more than 2 terms Judiciary fully empowered to repeal any legislation violating fundamental rights provided in the Constitution. Any foreign treaty has to be ractified by the Senate. Forum for Presidential Democracy

19. President V/s Congress – A Delicate Balance ! Forum for Presidential Democracy Illustration : Vasant Halbe

20. No More ! Forum for Presidential Democracy Illustration : Vasant Halbe

21. Prejudices and Misconceptions about Presidential Democracy • Mental block in several intellectuals mind (Even one of India’s Ex-Attorney General had this mental block) “In our system, we can replace Prime Minister if he is found corrupt / inefficient / controversial etc. Difficult in Presidential Democracy as President has a fixed tenure”. A). An honest person in our present system, may find it difficult to continue in the office unless he is willing to sacrifice his honesty / integrity. By manipulation, a controversial person can manage to become Prime Minister and also continue to hold the Office. But in a Presidential Democracy where there will be direct election by the entire country for electing the Executive Head of the Government, the preference will be for a non-controversial, honest and open-minded person who has to appeal to majority of the electorate etc. Wallace, a controversial personality could get only 13.5% vote. Forum for Presidential Democracy

22. V.P. Singh even with his JanataDal securing 18.3% vote could become Prime Minister in our system. • Similarly same JanataDal had less than 20% of total votes, yet DeveGowda or I.K.Gujral could become Prime Minister. • Easier for a corrupt politician / controversial character to be elected as M.L.A. / M.P. and later on could even manipulate to become C.M. / P.M. and even complete the tenure (At State level-the examples of such CMs are too many) • Nixon was shown the door in American system when he indulged in malpractice • In Contrast Indira Gandhi could complete her tenure by declaring Emergency and assuming powers of a dictator Forum for Presidential Democracy

23. Promotion of leadership Qualities • Not encouraged under our present system. • The Chief Ministers or the Prime Minister’s tenure insecure • Their hands are tied down • Selection of ministers • Implementation of policies • Taking action against incompetent and corrupt ministers etc. • Our Chief Ministers lack confidence. Even in the selection of the cabinet, they have to please everybody including the Delhi Durbar. • Our Mayors are mere figure heads / show pieces without any executive powers. Forum for Presidential Democracy

24. Presidential System • The direct election of the Mayor (City level) or Governor (State level) or President at (National level) • Giving them free hand to induct the best talent with security of tenure boosts their confidence. • Based on their performance, Governors / Mayors get groomed for higher level leadership. • Senators also form an important link for higher level leadership • Senators given adequate allowance to maintain capable support staff for their office in Washington DC and also in important cities in the State • Senate has wide powers to check the President • They do not form part of President’s Cabinet & hence no vested interest to support President • Independence to vote on any legislation. Mayor  Governor / Senator  Vice-President / President Forum for Presidential Democracy

25. Mixed Proportional Representation System • Voter to have choice of candidate as well as the Party • 50% of seats in the Legislative Assembly to be apportioned as per the present system of first past the post i.e. based on candidates securing highest number of votes to be elected. • 50% of seats to be apportioned to parties based on the percentage of votes polled by them in the elections. • Minimum criteria - Parties to secure atleast 5% votes • This will remove anomaly of ‘first past the post’ system of Loksabha Elections. True picture of popularity of the parties not reflected in LokSabha or State Assemblies • Parties getting 40 to 45 percent votes have secured 60 to 70% seats. • Parties getting 15-20% votes have not even secured 5% seats Forum for Presidential Democracy

26. Example of Disparity :- Tamilnadu State Election 1989 1991% of votesSeats % of votesSeats AIADMK 21.5 11.64 44.4 70.2 Congress 20.2 11.20 15.4 26.3 DMK 33.3 65.1 21.4 1 Madhya Pradesh State Election Year Congress BJP% of votesSeats % of votesSeats 1998 40.6 172 39.3 119 1993 40.7 174 38.8 117 1990 33.4 56 39.1 220 1985 48.8 250 32.4 58 1980 47.5 246 30.3 60 Germany has adopted the system of Mixed Proportional Representation with success. Forum for Presidential Democracy

27. Election Funding • Election funding a major source of corruption in the country.Reforms made in several countries from time to time. • State funding of elections in Germany Euro 0.85 (approx. Rs.56.00) per voter earmarked by the State for election funding. • This is provided to parties in a regulated manner as per percentage of votes polled by them in earlier elections. Parties must secure atleast 5% of total votes cast. Forum for Presidential Democracy

28. Australia – Public Funding introduced in 1984 Entitlement per vote – Aust. Dollar 0.912 (Rs.30) distributed to party as per their percentage of votes Canada Any political party which received 2 percent of vote is entitled to 50 percent of its election expenses More than 10 percent reimbursement upto 60 percent Private donation limited to Canadian $5000 per year and any donation above $ 25 has to be accepted. U.K. Each party allocated time for party political broadcasts on all T.V. channels. Each candidate is entitled to send election pamphlet / letter free of cost to every voter No political advertising allowed or T.V. or Radio Forum for Presidential Democracy

29. Election Funding Fertile Source of Corruption ! Forum for Presidential Democracy Illustration : Vasant Halbe

30. Election Funding • Part of election funding can be provided by the state by way of indirect support such as distribution of bio-data of candidates, provide media time on state T.V to political parties etc. • State funding, also available in Australia. • Reforms also made in American system after the Water Gate scandal. • The final Presidential elections :- Election expenses for both major political parties fully funded by the State. Forum for Presidential Democracy

31. ‘Law on Political Parties’ German Model seems Ideal • Publicly Account for source of funds / assets • Organisation must confirm to Democratic Principles. Elections of office bearers etc. mandatory • Party accounts have to be verified by the auditors Violation results in Parties declared unconstitutional Forum for Presidential Democracy

32. Primary system for selection of candidates • Selection of the candidates not at the whimps and fancies of Party Bosses. • Many countries have adopted Reforms to make this selection process more democratic in character. • In Germany, the candidate is selected based in a secret ballot in an Assembly of Party members or General Assembly of Party Representatives. • The American system makes it mandatory for selection of all the posts including that of Governor, Senator or President whereby Party candidates are nominated on the basis of popular votes secured by them. In such elections, all the members of the Party vote as in a general election and the candidates wining the primary automatically gets nomination by the Party. • If democracy is of the people, for the people and by the people, there is no better way than to have the very people participate in the selection process of the candidates to be nominated by the Parties in a democratic manner. Forum for Presidential Democracy

33. Extracts from Shri M.N. Venkatachaliah’s letter (dt. February 14, 2011) addressed to the Author “I really enjoyed the discussion we had on your views and analysis of the Presidential System. Frankly after listening to your meticulous analysis of the comparative merits, I must say I am veering around to your view. I am convinced that your objective is a pure one and is not aimed at pursuit of any political gains but to the promotion of a nationalist ideology. I am pleasantly amazed that our country still has persons like you. You have no personal ambitions in the matter. It is indeed gratifying that a highly qualified Engineer and Technologist like you should be taking such great interest in promoting a larger national cause. You have taken up this agenda of political reforms with no other expectation than good of the country at large. As it is, the political system in the country is on the verge of collapse and unless some drastic changes are ushered-in the future seems utterly bleak and hopeless.” With warm personal regards,                                                                              Yours sincerely,                                                                          M.N. Venkatachaliah Former Chief Justice of India Forum for Presidential Democracy