Tuesday, July 03, 2007

LET TRUE DEMOCRACY TAKE ITS OWN COURSE

The Congress has nominated Pratibha Patil as its candidate for the post of President of India.

The BJP too has nominated Vice President Bhairon Singh Shekhawat as an independent candidate.

Both parties have manipulated to push forward their own candidates in the hope that in the 2009 general elections if they fail to secure absolute majority, the President may invite the party which sponsored him or her in the first instance to form the government. Once the government is formed, other parties would line up to share power and would help the ruling party to secure a Vote of Confidence in Parliament.

The irony is that neither Congress nor BJP command absolute majority in the Electoral College for the Presidential Election. It is the regional parties who command absolute majority. Yet both the Congress and BJP are able to push forward the candidature of their own parties by dividing the regional parties.

So far as the Constitution of India is concerned, it does not recognise any political party or combination of parties such as UPA, NDA, UNPA, etc. For the purpose of electing the President of India the Constitution recognises only the elected members of Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha and State Assemblies. Who knows after the 2009 general elections there may not be any such bodies as UPA, NDA, UNPA, etc.?

India claims to be a federal polity with a strong bias towards a unitary form of government. It is the Centre, which calls the shots. The States are dependent upon the Centre for their share of revenues. The Centre appoints Governors of States and the States can be dismissed simply by an adverse report by the Governor. Under the present dispensation the States are treated as mere vassals of the Centre. Obviously, such a state of affairs is not conducive to the proper development of States and cannot last for long.

It is high time that regional parties put up their own candidate for the post of President of India. If elected, such a person will not act in a partisan manner at the time of 2009 general elections.

Moreover, if this experiment succeeds, it can be repeated at the time of 2009 general elections. This will also restore the balance of power in favour of the States vis-a-vis the Centre.

A Prime Minister who commands the respect of all the regional parties is anytime better than a person who is imposed upon the nation through convergence of fortuitous circumstances.

LET TRUE DEMOCRACY TAKE ITS OWN COURSE.

Sunday, June 24, 2007

Election of the president of India

In the words of Woodrow Wilson, the President is the representative of no constituency but of the whole people. The President of India, unlike that of the USA, has no executive power; but he represents “the majesty of the people incarnate”. His office symbolizes the unity and integrity of the State. He is above the chances and changes of party politics; and his election is, therefore, of special importance in a country like India with deep political divisions and numerous political parties.

Constitutional morality dictates that merit should be the sole criterion for the election of the Head of State. But the motivations and machinations of political parties suggest that merit has been subordinated by some groups to caste, creed or gender.

If the President has to be chosen by the democratic process, it is difficult to imagine of a more satisfactory method than that embodied in our fundamental law. There are five cardinal rules laid down in our Constitution to regulate the election of the President.

Firstly, the voting at the election is by secret ballot. Since the Head of State is expected to be above party politics, every vote for or against him is expected to be a conscience vote. This is meant to avoid vitiation of the election process by party politics.

Secondly, the election of the President is indirect. Nothing would be gained by having the President elected by “the mass man”. The Electoral College consists of the elected members of both houses of Parliament, and the elected members of the legislative assemblies of the states. The reason why the members of state assemblies have been included in the Electoral College is to prevent the President being elected merely by the vote of the party or coalition of parties which happens to be in power at the Centre.

Thirdly, there has to be uniformity among the states inter se, as far as practicable. This is achieved by ensuring that the rule of one voter, one vote, does not apply. Every elected member of the legislative assembly of a state has as many votes as there are multiples of one thousand in the quotient obtained by dividing the population of the state by the total number of elected members of the assembly. Uniformity in the scale of representation is brought about by the members of the legislative assemblies of thickly populated states having a larger number of votes than the members of the assemblies of less populous states.

Fourthly, the rule is that there should be parity between the states taken together and the Union. This is achieved by the provision that the elected members of the two houses of Parliament would have the same number of votes as the aggregate of the votes of the elected representatives of the state assemblies taken together.

Fifthly, the election of the President has to be held in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote. The object of this rule is to afford the minorities a better voice in the selection of the Head of State.

This method is known as “the alternative vote” in a single-member constituency. At the time when the votes are cast, every member of the Electoral College has to indicate which candidate he votes for in the order of preference. If a candidate gets an absolute majority of the votes cast, he would be deemed to have been elected and it would be unnecessary to have a recount. But if no candidate has secured an absolute majority of the votes cast, the subsequent preferences have to be taken into account. This is the effect of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Election Rules, 1952.

Since the voting is by secret ballot and there is provision for second preference, any attempt by political parties to manipulate the success or failure of a candidate before the election takes place is tantamount to tampering with the election process. The manner in which political parties are behaving at present is a matter of national shame.

Let the democratic process take its own course.

Sunday, June 03, 2007

FREE MARKET ECONOMY: BOON OR BANE FOR INDIA?

This is the age of free-market economy. What does it mean? To put it simply, it means free movement of capital, labour, goods and services throughout the world.

So far as India is concerned, it means that Indian professionals and skilled workmen will be able to secure jobs in foreign countries carrying higher salaries. It also means that Indian entrepreneurs will be able to sell their goods and services in foreign countries at higher prices, thus increasing their profit margins. In addition, foreigners will be able to open shops and factories in India, thereby creating greater job opportunities for local people. It will also give fillip to tourist, hospitality, banking and real estate industries. We can also encourage foreign countries to open educational, professional and vocational institutes here to meet the skilled labour requirements in India and in their own countries. Indians will be able to buy foreign branded goods in India itself at cheaper rates. Our people will be able to imbibe the habits and work culture of developed countries of the world and thus improve their style of living. The number of opportunities free market economy opens for us is tremendous. But all this is possible only if we are able to provide political stability in our country and are able to create an environment, which is free-market-economy friendly.

It is true that market economy is the fastest way to create wealth. But it is equally true that market economy, by itself, cannot eradicate poverty. In many cases it widens the gap between the rich and the poor. If this gap remains within manageable limits, as in the case of western democracies, it is fine. But if it widens beyond manageable limits, as in the case of many newly independent developing countries, it is bound to degenerate into social unrest, riots, chaos, and anarchy and in some cases even in violent revolution.

Developing countries need stability. Stability is possible only if the same political party remains in power for a number of terms. If there is a wide gap between the rich and the poor, there is a tendency among voters to oust the party in power, no matter whether the newly elected ruling party is competent or not. The newly elected party starts working on its own agenda and the whole process of development suffers a setback.

In the case of a violent revolution, nothing is certain.

India is a vast country with a huge population, exceeding 1 billion. More than 35 per cent of its population is illiterate and unemployed. A major portion of India’s population lives in rural areas, which lack in basic facilities of life such as shelter, clean drinking water, electricity, transport, public toilets, etc. India has a completely fragmented polity, which is divided on the basis of race, religion, caste, class, region and language. It has a judicial system, which is corrupt, inefficient and slow moving. Its administrative system is burdened with self-serving bureaucrats with rules and procedures which are cumbersome can be interpreted differently and are open to corruption. The political system is equally corrupt, inefficient and power hungry. Most legislators do not know how to govern and regard their election to Parliament, State Assemblies and Municipal Corporations as mere opportunities to make more money.

Under these circumstances, will India be able to take advantage of free-market-global economy and transform itself from a Third World country to a First World one?

My mind says “No”, but my heart says, “Yes” – miracles do happen!