ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

The Rediff Special/C Subramaniam

'We should not delay the review any further'

The central government misuses Article 356.

That also requires reviewing, like under the circumstances it should be used, etc. Like this, there are a number of areas that we have to look into. So, the President should have more power in the formation of the government. Now even when you have a ministry which does not have a majority in Parliament, the President is bound by the advice of the Cabinet which has no parliamentary backing.

Many observers say Home Minister L K Advani spoke about the presidential system because the BJP has a better leadership to offer. Do you also feel that way?

No, no. Not only the BJP but others also advocated and are advocating a presidential system. In my view, it is better to continue with the present system. After identifying the weakness in the present system, necessary amendments can be made in the Constitution.

So many amendments have been made in the Constitution in the last fifty years.

But not in these areas.

Why is it that these areas were neglected till now?

Everybody once they are in power do not worry about it at all.

Do you see shades of fascism in Advani's opinion about the presidential system?

No, that's his point of view. I don't think even in the BJP, all of them are for a presidential system. There is no official resolution of the BJP that we should opt for a presidential system. That's not even in their manifesto.

But it is the parliamentary system which is predominant all over the world. Only the USA follows the presidential system. France has a mixture of parliamentary and presidential system. Germany has parliamentary system. Britain, of course traditionally follows the parliamentary system. All the colonies which got out of Britain also have parliamentary democracies. Wherever the presidential system has come, like in Africa for example, presidents became dictators.

Can't we follow the German system where the government completes its term in spite of no confidence motions?

We can also have that system. There you can't just pass a no confidence motion. They have to name the successor. So, when one prime minister goes, automatically another prime minister steps in. We can try that too since we have problems in that area. These are all things for consideration.

Do you think Indira Gandhi called an election after the Emergency only because we had a parliamentary system? Would she have continued if we had a presidential system?

It would have continued.

So, was that one of the advantages of the parliamentary system?

See, ultimately whether you have a parliamentary system or presidential system, it depends upon the people who work the Constitution. As long as we don't have good persons who are capable of functioning as president or ministers, etc we will get into the same thing. Then some cinema actor may become the President of India or an actress can become the President of India!

During various debates, many people commented that even after reviewing the Constitution, even after changing the system itself, we are going to have the same kind of people there, and corruption, poverty and unemployment are also going to be there in the same way.

It is in these areas that we have to concentrate. We have to put various clauses in the Constitution, taking into account the deficiencies we have now. We thought everybody would be like Mahatma Gandhi or Jawaharlal Nehru, Rajaji and others. But the quality has deteriorated gradually and corruption has crept in. So, all these will have to be taken care of constitutionally, and we should know how to deal with those who indulge in corruption. The Lok Pal and other things should from a part of the Constitution.

Why is it that people are electing even chargesheeted, corrupt leaders? It is not that they are ignorant about the corrupt deeds of the politicians.

For that, we should have better educational standards in the public. Sixty per cent of the people are not educated in the sense that they are carried away by slogans or by personalities. So, an awakening should come.

Do you feel something concrete will come out of fall these debates?

It should come out, otherwise we will continue to be in the same state of affairs. This is the situation where a change is necessary. If you don't bring about the change for a better functioning of the administration, we will continue to be in the same muddle.

How will this muddle affect the country?

It may disintegrate just like Russia. We will not have a united India because when people get disillusioned like this, they might think a separate state might be better. So, disintegration is likely to set in. We should not delay the review any further, I feel. That is why the government has taken it as a policy. A commission will be appointed. I hope they will make good recommendations to rectify the deficiencies and defects.

Both Pakistan and Bangladesh tried their hands at the presidential system but had to revert back to a parliamentary system later on. What are the major deficiencies in the presidential system?

It leads to dictatorship. That is the major problem. In Pakistan, the army plays a crucial role. That is not the case here. Here, the judiciary is the main player.

Are you in favour of the judicial activism that we see today and the power that the judiciary wields now?

Yes. The judiciary should have the power to step in whenever a crisis occurs, like scams, corruption, misuse of power, etc.

The Rediff Constitution Debate

The Rediff Interviews

Tell us what you think of this interview