Even the biggest optimist has to concede that India is destined to be a coalition-governed country for years to come. Its political landscape has become so fragmented that no party can win a simple majority in the 543-member Lok Sabha, the lower house.

The Congress or the Bharatiya Janata Party, the two national parties which have been hovering around the 200-plus mark for a long time, may increase their tally by a few more seats (or lose some) in the 2014 elections. Yet neither of the two parties looks like reaching the dream figure of 272 to win a simple majority.

The scenario evokes despondency because the functioning of the BJP-led government from May 16 to June 1, 1996 and from March 19, 1998 to May 22, 2004 and the Congress-led government from 2004 till date has shown that the party in power has to give in on too many critical points to ensure the support of the coalition partners.

The Congress has constituted the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), while the BJP headed the National Democratic Alliance (NDA). The very word, ‘alliance', suggests that it is a combination of parties which have chosen to be part of the group on the basis of a give-and-take agreement.

Inevitably, what emerges is not the best combination, but a hotchpotch of different interests.

Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee has been bold enough to admit that economic reforms will have to wait till after the 2014 elections because what the government wanted to do was not acceptable to its allies. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has repeatedly said that his government has to follow the "coalition dharma", effectively meaning that key reforms may be held up because some coalition partners don't approve of them.

Losing direction

In other words, his is a lame duck government which has no option other than dotting the I's and crossing the T's for the next two years. The status quo in the face of rising prices and the declining growth rate is not a healthy proposition. The country cannot make rapid progress because the parliamentary system, with all its plus points, is too dependent on a majority which is illusionary under the circumstances.

The parliamentary system in India has sustained democracy, but failed to deliver the goods. Indian parliament celebrated its 60th anniversary last week, but members disrupting proceedings and staging walkouts has become the norm. Is this good for a country battling poverty?

People should seriously consider switching to a presidential form of government. This too is democratic and transparent, like in America and France. In this way, Indians will get the most acceptable face in the country because people from different parts of India will vote directly for one person for a fixed tenure, say five years. He or she, in turn, will not have to depend on coalition allies or regional parties.

The President would not to have buy the support of MPs as the prime ministers of both the Congress and the BJP have done. In the process, the nation would feel more coherent and united. There will be a parliament, the directly elected Lok Sabha and the indirectly elected Rajya Sabha — like the US Congress and the Senate. Powers of the houses can be redefined in the Indian context.

No doubt, there is a danger that the president might turn into a dictator. But there would be checks and balances lest he or she should hijack the system.

In fact, the presidential form of government was debated at the Constituent Assembly. Many members favoured it while others wanted safeguards against a totalitarian government. But Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first prime minister, stopped any further debate by arguing that India had become used to the British parliamentary system.

Nehru did not face any difficulty in his 17-year rule. This was because one, he himself was a charismatic leader, loved by the people for having been chosen by Mahatma Gandhi and, two, the Congress was in power in practically all the states.

In any case, parliament has already undergone a change because of the legislation which has made the domicile qualification for the Rajya Sabha members redundant. It was laid down that a Rajya Sabha member should ordinarily be a resident of the state which returns him or her through its assembly. One decade ago, both the Congress and the BJP substituted the word ‘state' with ‘India'. How does India make sense when the Rajya Sabha is the ‘house of states'? By dropping the domicile qualification, they opened the doors of the house to money bags.

By doing so, the balance in the parliamentary system has been disturbed. The federal structure that the constitution framers had in mind has been demolished. Even the report by Justice R.S. Sarkaria at the centre-state relations has not been implemented.

In a democracy, it is important that people have faith in the system. That is why a presidential form of government is the need of the hour.

 

Kuldip Nayar is a former Indian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom and a former Rajya Sabha member.