Essays

There have been occasional noises being made from time to time. Mr. Vasant Sathe put forth the suggestion for system change, when Mrs. Gandhi was being exposed to dramatic and traumatic uncertainties during the emergency days. It was then argued that he was not speaking on his own, that his plea was a surrogate advocacy on behalf of his leader.

According to Mr. R.K. Murthy, a noted constitutionalist, the situation of the Congress government at the Centre, is occasionally rocked by internal dissension, sometimes triggering the strokes of the old war-cry based solely on the assumption that if the nation is administered by a President, directly elected and free from the bonds of political support from the diverse parties/groups which are represented in the Parliament, the maladies which nag the nation will vanish. In other words, the Presidential system, in the eyes of those who see nothing but commendable perfection in it, is the only way out of the impasse. It is the magic wand. So, why is it that intellectuals, belonging to diverse schools, are refusing to back the move to the hilt?

Are there not enough in-built mechanisms which operate on the basis of checks and counter-checks to ensgre that the operational style of the Constitution remains above the maladies which weaken the ration? The posers, apportioned between the four pillars—the legislature, the judiciary, the executive and the Press—have been deftly defined and often improved upon in the hope that the system shall thus give sustenance to the basics of democracy namely—liberty, equality and fraternity.

Unfortunately, there had been a growing nexus between the legislature and the executive. Often, civil servants choose to go with the VIPs holding legislative offices. The two pillars of democracy, specifically entrusted with definite duties, find it more convenient to go hand in hand, adjusting and accommodating each other's interests, even if the national interests get diluted.

Mercifully, the judiciary, by and large chooses to have its own voice. Attempts are made to curb the judiciary. Every move was justified, often by advocates with adequate lung power. The supersession of the senior-most judge for promotion to the post of Chief Justice, way back in the 1970s was the first move to assail them citadels of judicial impartiality. Then came a series of moves on the part of the executive and legislature, each one a sugarcoated bitter blow to the judiciary, aimed at weakening its. Basic strength and forcing the judiciary to fall in line.

The intolerance, which some political leaders showed when the judiciary stood between them and the objectives of new changes and reforms they desired, stood out. When the higher judiciary (unlike the lower judiciary) maintained its independence, despite repeated assaults, the politicians in power explored ways ani means of getting even with the judiciary.

Every time the judiciary interpreted the provisions of the Constitution, taking a legal and sensible view (as is the case with the upper limit for reservation at 49.99 per cent), the legislatures sought basic amendment to the Constitution itself.

For politicians, who depend on the votes they can garner at the polls such gimmicks which shall serve the immediate objectives of their party. The changes in the constitution, which are often pressed for, are nothing but gimmicks to sub-serve their immediate interests. Will not Presidential system provide the cure to such maladies? The President, directly elected/ enjoying the people's mandate can provide stability. Since he does not have to worry about his tenure, he can be bold and defiant. He can adopt even unpalatable measures to improve the state of the nation. He will be free from the temptations and failings which have become dominant features of our political system.

The arguments strike us as logical but soon doubts creep up. The Constitution came into effect on January 26, 1950. Has the management of the state failed because of intrinsic defects in the basics of the Constitution? Or did it fail because the men entrusted with the task of managing the affairs of the State on the basis of the Constitution (which had been drafted by some of the best brains—legal luminaries, political pundits, constitutional experts) failed to measure up to the ideological excellence of the framers of the Constitution?

Why did the Constitution remain almost unchanged, all through Pandit Nehru's regime? With Mrs. Gandhi in power, the constitution began undergoing frequent changes. Once the legislature learnt what the constitution, though said and sacrified could still be moulded and twisted and shaped to suit the mood and tempo of the ruling elan, and the assault on the Constitution could turn into an avalanche.

Every time a wrong move was checked by the courts, the political masters resorted to changes in the Constitution. Since the elected representatives alone enjoyed this power, the other three pillars of democracy were mere fallouts of such changes. But once the changes were duly endorsed and approved, even the judiciary could do nothing but function within the amended text of the Constitution.

Will the Presidential form of government be free from this weakness? That is asking for the moon. For, the President, who is elected to the high office, on the basis of a new Constitution, will realize, sooner or .later, that there are grey areas which fetter his powers. He will strain at every check to his arbitrary power. He will then use the powers granted to him—more often than not, powers which he perceives or his advisers tell him are available—to concentrate more power in his hands.

It would need an exceptionally levelheaded, patriotic President to resist the temptation to operate within the constitutional framework under which he comes to power. Why can't we have such a person to adorn the high office? Well, if there is such a person, he can be as effective, even under the present Constitution. For, whatever be the system, we still are not for depriving the people of their right to choose their leader. Instead of granting that right to the party which enjoys public support, the Presidential system shall only mean a direct election to the high office.

Given the pressures which the nation holds within, it is a tall order to expect any person however honest and principled he be, to enjoy the support of all sections of society. Unity in diversity remains still a catchy slogan, but all political parties have fully exploited the divisiveness in Indian politics to sub- serve their interests. More than ever before is the nation divided on the basis of caste and community and religion and region? The evolution of local sataraps bears an unmistakable, yet tragic parallel to the last days of the Moghuls.

There is no need to give oneself up to despair for there is hope. But that hope cannot be through a change in the system. Whether we continue to operate the present system or we opt for the Presidential form of government, the nation will still continue to meander into the morass of degeneration unless the people learn to exercise their rights.

We need honest politicians. We want people who do not look upon elected offices as their personal fiefs. We need men who do not look upon their terms in office as the times when the sun shines in their life and when they must make hay. They must be selfless, unaffected by the trappings of the office, dedicated to the service of the people.

They are there. They are working quietly, silently, in their chosen walks of life. Many names come to mind—Baba Amte, Sunderlal Bahuguna, Parameswara Rao. Many young professionals have fanned out into the rural areas. They have been rendering pioneering work in educating the people about better hygiene. They have organized the people to get better returns for their labour. They have brought literacy to remote corners of India.

They are the people who have kept out of elected offices. They have no faith in the system as it operates now. Nor will they suddenly become enthusiastic if the Presidential system is introduced. Let the system remain but let the system operate freely Let people who are genuinely interested in serving the nation be elected. That depends on us, the people of India: And, if we fail ourselves, no system can prove effective. We alone can strengthen or weaken the system. None else.