WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE
PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM?
Dr. R. Gangadhara Sastry
‘Every country has the Government it deserves’ - Joseph Maistre.
The Indian nation is going through a sort of troubled times by facing political and economic crises of unprecedented nature. Though the economic crisis could be contained - it appears as if the political turmoil is not likely to end soon. If the current behaviour of the political parties is any indication, it appears that political uncertainty is likely to rule the roost in the country for atleast a few more years to come. Political parties are vying with one another in projecting as good an image as possible in the midst of utter disorderliness and chaos in the political arena through presenting a pattern of alignments and realignments that convey no understandable logic to the people. Inexplicable, illogical and opportunistic alliances between political parties prompted by temporary benefit has become the order of the day. To some it appears as if parliamentary system of democracy has almost lost its relevance in the Indian context. Fifty years of parliamentary democratic system is held responsible for all the current problems of the country, and hence, of late attempts are rather seriously and of course, earnestly being made by many a scholar to assess the possibilities for the successful working of the prevailing system of governance, more particularly in the present context of the fast deteriorating political situation in the country. Reasonably argued out, and highly thought - provoking recommendations are made both in favour and against the present system.
While those who considered the present ‘parliamentary model’ a failure have been advocating its replacement with that of the ‘presidential pattern’, those who still sympathise with the present system are in favour of restoring and reforming it in such a manner as to meet the needs of the people and fulfil the aspirations of the Founding Fathers. Since the issue has already begun to attract the attention of one and all, it certainly merits a detailed consideration. It would all, however, be highly fascinating to realise that the present ‘pattern’ is an outcome of a process of detailed intellectual deliberations by the Constituent Assembly as the model of government that was to be adopted by free India. Due to a variety of significant reasons the assembly dominated by the Congress members – was rather primarily convinced that India would be richly benefited by the ‘Parliamentary model’ though the Congress Party was committed to a ‘Federal System’, that which is closer to a ‘Presidential Pattern’, for a substantial period of time before the attainment of freedom.
However, the prevailing political scenario dominated by highly disturbing and very unpleasant developments over the past three decades like:
The ‘Presidential Model’ known for its stability, rigidity and vulnerability to politicisation of issues for short term gains at the expense of long term national progress, accordingly, is recommended by some as the panacea for all the ills afflicting the present system. The ‘Presidential Model’ - as well, has found favour with many a constitutional expert for factors like:
etc., etc.,.
The proponents of the ‘Presidential Model’ thus appear to be heavily banking on the aspects of its ‘stability and rigidity’ - hoping that all other benefits the United States is enjoying would follow automatically. Whether it would work out the way they are expecting is the question that requires to be satisfactorily answered before plunging the nation into a new model of governance, that too in the present political setting. Imposing of a totally new political system on a people who are used to a particular model for nearly half a century or even more would not certainly be a smooth affair without serious repercussions all over the nation in all walks of life of the people at large. Anyway, democratic governance generally speaking - is made possible and largely available only through either the Parliamentary or the Presidential model keeping aside the peculiar ‘collegiate executive pattern’. While the Parliamentary pattern is preferred due to the ‘accountability’ principle, the Presidential model is sought after more for the ‘stability’ benefit. Unfortunately we have not yet succeeded in designing a model that could grant both ‘accountability and responsibility’ and ‘stability with strength’ at the same time to the best possible advantage of any people’. We are also rather more perplexed, confused, and perhaps taken for a ride by various “isms” - being lured by the promise of the establishment of an egalitarian society which forever remained an alluring mirage. Ignorance of the reality that ‘political systems are racy of the soil’ - causes no perfect understanding and hence one is tempted to think that a system’s successful run in one country would guarantee a similar success in any other nation once transplanted.
It is common knowledge that the successful functioning of any democratic system warrants well-organised and strongly structured political parties which in turn ensure/guarantee internal democracy as well. For example the successful working of either the system prevailing in Britain or the one in the United States is largely and rightly picturised by a number of political commentators to be the success story of the two-party system. And, in the Indian context it is the failure of the political parties to come up to the expectations of the Founding Fathers in making the parliamentary scheme a success but not the failure of the system itself as such. Doubts as to the behaviour of the people and the political parties to make the parliamentary system a success were expressed by none other than the Chairman of the Constituent Assembly himself while talking on the efficacy of the Constitution on the 25th of November, 1949. He cautioned the people not to pass judgements on the efficacy of the Constitution (as it became the order of the day) without taking into consideration the role of the people and the political parties that really either make or mar the democratic system. According to him ‘however good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out to be bad because those who are called upon to work it happen to be a bad lot. However bad a Constitution may be, it may turn out to be a good one, if those who work it happen to be a good lot.
The working of a Constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of the Constitution; The Constitution can provide only the organs of State such as the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The factors on which the working of those organs of the State depend are the people and the political parties. Who can say how the people of India and their parties will behave? Will they uphold constitutional methods of achieving the process or will they prefer the revolutionary methods, however good the Constitution may be? It requires no prophet to say that it will fail. It is, therefore, futile to pass any judgement upon the Constitution without reference to the part people and their parties are likely to play.” (C.A.D., Vol. XI., P.975). And to prove him precisely right it is the political parties and the people in general that caused the degeneration of the parliamentary system in our country. And to think that the ‘presidential model’ would grant relief to the nation from the present disorderliness and chaos is like deliberately ignoring the fact that it would result in a much worse situation leading probably to the breakdown of the entire system which might ultimately lead to the balkanisation of the country.
A. G. Noorani, making the same point with greater clarity once noted that, ‘there has been a persistent discontinuity in the political party system. The party system has not evolved although political parties have existed. A presidential system will not help to overcome this failure’. (See, A. G. Noorani, The Presidential System - The Indian Debate. Sage Publications, 1989, P. 95). On the other hand it is equally important to realise that a well organised party system that guarantees internal democracy alone would contribute to the successful working of either of the systems. For example, as pointed out by a learned observer, ‘the U.S., political party system derives its resilience and vitality from the functional freedom that the parties and the party representatives enjoy, to the extent of voting according to their conviction and conscience even if it means going contrary to party positions. They simply do not permit anything like a remote control exercised by centralised party set-up’. (The Hindu, Dec.12, 1996, P. 12).
Unfortunately, the case is different in India and we would do well to realise that any system’s success or stability is ensured more by a competent role by the party system than is commonly realised. The degeneration of the parliamentary system in the Indian Context is wrongly understood more as a flaw in the Cabinet system of governance than as a disease prevalent in the political life of the country. It is equally important to accept that the succeeding governments formed at the centre ever since the time of independence have thoroughly neglected to ‘federalise’ the internal structure and the working of various political parties that support the democratic parliamentary structure. Though the Constitution of India declares India to be a Union of States, for obvious reasons its quasi-federal nature is certainly an integral part and basic feature of the system that has been carefully designed by the Founding Fathers. And this Quasi-federal nature being so natural and spontaneous to the nation is inextricably woven into the socio-cultural dimension of the people that the political parties should have translated, this reality into action not merely through manifestoes and work plans that always fell short of targets, but through a real and deep commitment to ‘Co-operative federalism’ which constitutes the spirit of our Constitution. C. Subramaniam, an eminent scholar in his own right made the same observation as he wrote ‘Governments are the offshoots of the policies and activities of organised parties and unless their character and mode of functioning conform to the imperatives of federalism, there is no hope of success of initiatives, however well meant. However, we do not wish to ignore the reality that the task of political parties in our country is more complicated, serious and complex due to the presence of a large variety of regional differences with respect to language, religion, caste, community, customs, habits, usages, practices etc., etc. Hence, undoubtedly it is federalisation of the working of the political parties that holds the key to the successful working of any parliamentary system rather then the total centralisation as it happened in our country with almost all parties, both national and regional.
Anyway, the presidential model as it functions today in the United States (successfully though largely remains to be the product of the writings of the celebrated French thinker Montesquieu) is not without changing its colours based, on the exigencies of time and circumstances. Though ‘separation of powers’ and ‘checks and balances’ formed the crux of the constitutional scheme, in the context of the industrial, scientific and technological advancement of the U.S., and with the growth of powers of the President, it is no more what either Johnson or Madison visualised it, to be. Today, the complexity that surrounds the working of the U.S., President and the Congress is such a mind boggling political mire that it would generate more problems to our country, if adopted. Going by the past experience of various countries we should accept that, “In countries influenced by the model of the United States, the presidential system has not been altogether successful. Latin American systems have tended to become dictatorships” (Michael Curtis, 1978, P.239).
Finally, without working for the better performance of the system with which we are familiar for a very long time, and the one which is highly flexible and unbelievably suitable to nations with composite culture like ours - to think of imposing altogether a new system is nothing short of adding to the burdens of the nation. It is totally misleading to declare that the Presidential system generates stability and strength due to the fixed term of office and independence with which the President functions. On the other hand the reality is that, “the U.S., President is constrained to be far more solicitous of the wishes of the Legislators than a British Prime Minister is. The President can survive in Office despite an antagonistic Congress but he does little more than that and cannot be effective or successful in carrying out his policies and programmes in such circumstances. No wonder Johnson told Jack Valenti, ‘the most important people you will talk to are Senators and Congressmen. You treat them as if they were President”. (Noorani, A.G., Op. Cit., P.58).
All said and done, past experience vindicates the reality that the advantages the parliamentary system guarantees certainly far outweigh those offered by the Presidential System even during these times of crisis. If any country were to face a situation of political instability - there is absolutely no cure available. While such instability will produce a weak parliamentary executive, it will render the functioning of the presidential executive virtually impossible. Little realising the truth that we have miserably failed in either conceiving or nurturing a strong and stable party system on one hand, and the contentions, usages and practices on the other that are so vital to the working of the parliamentary model, blaming the pattern as such would amount to evading responsibilities by the various constituents of the system.