Questpresentation1

Jashwant B. Mehta
(Convener)

B-145/146, Mittal Tower, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021
Email : info@presidentialdemocracy.org  www.presidentialdemocracy.org

1
Forum for Presidential Democracy

Parliamentary Democracy

Forum for Presidential Democracy 2

Forum‟s Analysis
Based on the study of Constitutions of
leading liberal democracies such as British,
French, German, U.S., Japan, Australia
etc. and in-depth analysis of our own
performance of last six decades a change
over to a truly democratic presidential
system is the need of the hour along with
certain electoral, judicial and police
reforms.

a. Ever-growing frustration and discontent
against the present political system

b. Deteriorating Governance and rampant Corruption
among politicians and bureaucrats. Has now reached
unprecedented heights. Scams gallore. Spectrum
2G, Adarsh, Commonwealth Games .....

c. “Democracy is of the people, for the people &
by the people.” It is only a formal democracy
where the word „People‟ seems to have been
replaced by the „politicians‟


Our present parliamentary system
l President only symbolic head of the government
l The Executive Head of the Govt. is Prime Minister
(PM)
l We elect members of parliament (popularly called
MPs)
l The Party gaining majority or a coalition in case
no party gains a majority forms the government
l The PM not directly elected. On many occasions
choice of PM a virtual manipulation by political
parties to suit their vested interests especially in
case of coalition
Forum for Presidential Democracy (contd.) 6

l The Cabinet selected by PM from amongst the
MPs
l The same model followed at State level
l The Governor a mere symbolic head appointed
by the President as recommended by Central
Govt.
l The Executive head is the Chief Minister elected
by State legislature
l The Mayor with a short tenure of one year also
a mere ceremonial head of local govt.

The Presidential System of Democracy.
l The President not merely ceremonial head but also executive
head of government
l Directly elected by people for a fixed tenure
l There are various models of presidential democracy, the most
popular and successful is US model followed by French model
l USA has 50 states and Governor as the Executive Head
at State level also directly elected. Same model
followed at City level where Mayor is the Executive Head
directly elected
l Cabinet selected from outside parliament consisting of capable
talented and hard core professionals competent for their jobs
l Member of Parliament cannot be a part of the cabinet 8

Interesting observation
Presidential Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
(US model) (Our model)
3 direct votes to elect a Federal Govt. Only 1 vote to elect a Central Govt.

To elect a President Executive Head of No direct vote to elect executive head
the Govt. of govt.. Many times election of PM a
manipulation by political parties to
suit their vested interests (more so in
case of coalition)
To elect a Senator (Member of Upper Our Rajya Sabha (Upper House)
House) members elected indirectly without
direct participation of people. The
choice vests with the party bosses and
not with the people.

To elect a member of Lower House Only one direct vote to elect a
(House of Representatives) Member of Lok Sabha


What will be the advantages of a presidential Democracy?
I. Stability

l Under our system, unless the ruling party has a
comfortable majority, the PM or CM always under
pressure from the opposition as well as the members of
his own party

l In case of coalition, there is a virtual pull and push
from the coalition parties to suit their own vested
interests and agendas

l In Presidential democracy, the President or Governor
once elected, even with the smallest of margin, enjoy
full stability till next elections.


Stability – Central Govt.

Last 20 years - 8 Elections (3 mid-term)
10 Coalition Govts
6 governments collapsed prematurely
l No Single Party able to secure majority.
l Rule by coalition of several disparate parties
Prime Minister / Tenure Government

V.P. Singh National Front a make strift coalition of Janata Dal (143 M.P.s)
1989 / 11 months & Telugu Desam, DMK & A.G.P. supported by B.J.P. & left
front from outside (both diametrically opposite to each other).
Collapsed due to withdrawal of support by BJP.

Chandrashekhar Break away Janata Dal with 64 M.Ps supported by Congress
1990 / 5 months (197 M.Ps) from outside. Collapsed due to withdrawal of
support by Congress.

MID – TERM ELECTIONS 1991

Prime Minister Year /Tenure Government
Narsimha Rao 1991 – 96 Congress with 232 seats & other regional
5 years parties. Open allegations of pay-offs to JMM
members to win vote on no confidence motion.
Vajpayee 1996 BJP (180 seats) could not rope in other parties
15 days
Deve Gowda 1996 – 97 Coalition of 14 parties led by Janata Dal
11 months supported from outside by Congress (127 seats).
Collapsed when support withdrawn by Congress.
I. K. Gujral 1997 – 98 United Front Coalition of 16 parties supported
10 months from outside by Congress (127 seats). Same fate
as Deve Gowda when Congress withdrew support.
Vajapayee 1998 NDA led by BJP (182 seats) & 21 other parties.
15 months Collapsed due to withdrawal of support by
Jayalalitha. (AIADMK – 18 seats)
-do- 1999-2004 NDA coalition of 23 parties (296 seats) led by BJP
(182 seats)

Prime Minister /Year/ Government
Tenure

Manmohan Singh UPA consisting of Congress with 184 seats & 21 other
2004 – 2009 parties. Also supported by CPM from outside. Managed to
5 years survive when CPM withdrew support as Indo-American Civil
Nuclear deal Mulayam Singh Yadav stepped in to save the
Govt. (Price extracted as withdrawal of disproportionate
assets case initiated by CBI in Supreme Court)

-do- UPA led by Congress with 206 seats and DMK- 18 seats,
2009 onwards NCP-9, TC-19, TMM-2, NC-3, RJP-4, Others -5. Virtual
spectator Ministerships distributed as largesse as per
coalition parties choice. Allowed to siphon off money
without any control. „Compromises have to be made in
coalition.‟ (P.M.‟s speech in press conference in Feb. 2011).
At what cost? (Rs.1.76 Lakh crore Telecom Scandal involving
great Raja & his Colleagues!)

When Mamata withdrew the support, Mulayam Singh &
Mayawati stepped in to support. Support at what price !


STABILITY – State level

Record even more dismal

Our largest State UP (Period : 1995 – 2002)

6 Govts. which included 3 spells of Mayawati besides Kalyan
Singh, Rajnath Singh etc. and President‟s rule in between on two
occasions.

Earlier record of 8 govts in 7 yrs (1967-1974) still unbroken.
(This included 2 spells of Mayawati besides Kalyan Singh,
Rajnath Singh etc. and President’s rule in between on two
occasions.)

Smaller States, still worse

Meghalaya (Period : 1992 – 2007)
12 Govts. in a 15 year period

Goa (Period : 1990-2000)

14 Govts. in a 10 yr period. Pratap Singh Rane, Dr. Wilfred D’Souza,
Ravi Naik rotated post of Chief Minister 7 times among themselves.

The above are only few illustrative examples.


Political see-saw !
Forum for Presidential Democracy Illustration : Vasant Halbe 16

Enemies Zindabad !

Collapsible Support !

This is becoming a nuisance, a code must be evolved so that no
government can be toppled for at least a couple of months!
Courtesy : R.K. Laxman

Wiped out corruption, improved the lot of the common man, brought prosperity to plenty,
when he governed as the chief minister between 17th March, 1997 and 24th March 1997
Courtesy : R.K. Laxman

Hold it ! Don’t, don’t ! I received news that he is no longer the chief minister. The
opposition has just toppled him!
Forum for Presidential Democracy Courtesy : R.K. Laxman 21

I had the majority support for full two days. If he had allowed me I
would have formed a government by now!

Why did we opt for the British type of Parliamentary form
of Democracy?
Familiarity & Respect for the British system
l Shri B.K. Nehru “Furthermore, the Constituent Assembly was
dominated by lawyers trained solely in the British tradition and in the
British system of Law, who constituted a substantial proportion of the
membership of the Assembly. Their knowledge of Constitutional law was
largely confined to the horizon of the British Constitution.”

l Dr. K.M. Munshi – a member of the Constituent Assembly
“We must not forget very important fact that, during the last one hundred
years, Indian public life has largely drawn upon the traditions of British
constitutional law. Most of us have looked to the British model as the best.
……. After this experience, why should we go back on the tradition that has
been built over a hundred years and try a novel experiment.”

Why did the Americans choose different system?

They had much more familiarity with British Constitution than us
(majority of first lot were British Immigrants)

Apprehension whether the new country will have the prerequisites
for evolution of a genuine 2 Party system?

Answer :- No

Reason :- While the first lot of settlers were mainly from Britain, in
due course there would be Immigrants from various countries of
Europe such as France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Holland, Portugal etc.
each having its own identity including that of language would prefer
to have its own party and ultimately, might end up with 15 or 20
different parties.


Our similarity ! – Parties formed based on
Language / Regional / Religion / Caste
l Punjab − Akali Dal
l Andhra − Telugu Desam, Telangana Rashtriya Samiti
l Tamil Nadu − DMK / AIADMK / PDMK / MDMK
l Maharashtra − Shiv Sena & now MNS
l Kashmir − National Conference, P.D.P.,
l Goa − Maharastra Gomantak Party
l Nagaland − Nagaland People‟s Front
l Mizoram − Mizoram National Front etc.
l Orrisa − Biju Janata Dal
l Jharkand − Jharkand Mukti Morcha
l Assam − Assom Gano Parishad
l U.P. /Bihar − Caste dominant
B.S.P. (Dalit) Samajwadi Party / RJD (O.B.C./Minority)
l West Bengal − Trinamool Congress
l Evolved - a new a new system as democratic as the British
l But assuring full stability with all the checks & balances.

Impact of Presidential System on Party-
formation (U.S. Example)
l Presently 2 major political parties viz. Republics / Democrats

l Time to time new parties formed
l 1968 – Presidential Election Governor George Wallace founded
American Independent Party and secured 13.5% votes
(nation-wide) in Presidential Elections
l 1980 – Anderson contested as 3rd Party Candidate secured –
6.6% votes

l Both these parties virtually disappeared before next
elections
l Reasons
l Little Impact on the final outcome of Presidential elections

l No role to play after the elections

French Example – similar story
l Between 1946 - 1958 – Parliamentary system existed like
ours
l 14 – Political Parties
l Coalitions for sharing of Power. Differences and
controversial fights between the parties. 26 Govts. in
12 years
l New Constitution drafted by Degaulle „Presidential Form
of Government‟ approved by 79.2% of votes in 1958
l The total no. of parties kept on reducing since then
l Presently – 4 parties Divided in 2 main coalitions Left &
Right

Comparison with our system
l Smaller parties able to play important roles after the elections
l Sometimes virtually a kingmaker‟s role
l Jayalalitha – Had 21 members out of 542 in Lok Sabha – only
3.5% of total votes in the country. She virtually brought down
Vajpayee Govt (1998 – 99).
l DMK had its own way in demanding the portfolios. Inspite of
Rs. 1,76,000 crores ($40 Billion) of telecom scam, DMK is still
beyond question for the P.M.
l Shiv Sena or Telugu Desam or DMK or AIADMK all are
Kingmakers in their own way
l Innumerable examples can be cited
l The system encourages
Fragmentation Survival of Smaller parties
Defections Horse Trading


The words of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar sounds
prophetic” (Memorandum to Constituent Assembly)*,
“In view of the clashes of castes and creeds there is bound to
be a plethora of parties and groups in the Legislature in India.
If this happens, it is possible, nay certain, that under the
Parliamentary System, Executive is bound to resign upon an
adverse vote in the Legislature. India may suffer from the
instability of the Executive. For it is the easiest thing for
groups to align and realign themselves at frequent intervals
and for pretty purpose and bring about the downfall of the
Government. Constant overthrow of the Government is
nothing short of anarchy. The American form of executive is
an equally good type of a democratic and responsible form of
the Government.”
* (From the notes provided by Late Shri Chimanbhai Mehta, a veteran politician and former union
cabinet minister)

CABINET FORMATION
& FUNCTIONING


Our Jumbo Cabinets
1. „Size‟ determined by „Necessity for Survival‟
(Either for Govt or for Chief Minister or Prime Minister as Individuals)
l New records established
(i) Laloo prasad‟s record of 67 member cabinet in Bihar broken by
(ii) Kalyan Singh‟s cabinet of 93 members in UP
(iii) Haryana had 33 ministers out of 90 member house
(Ruling Party had 51 members which means for every 3 members, 2
were ministers!)
l Compare
l British Cabinet – 20 members (Tradition – No written Constitution)
l Japanese Cabinet – 20 members (Constitution)
l Australian Cabinet – 30 members (Constitution)
l American cabinet – only 14 members

Recommendations of Venkatachalliah Commission
on Constitutional Reforms (year 2000)

1. Cabinet size not to exceed 10% of legislature
strength (at Central / State level) watered
down to 15%.

2. For a strength of 543 M.Ps in Lok Sabha, this
would still mean 81 member Jumbo cabinet.

3. For smaller states like Goa, Sikkim etc. where
no. of legislators are less than 40, limit is 12.
Still too high (30% of legislature strength).


Ministerships distributed as a Largesse
a. M.C. Chagla – „Ministership – A badge of
disloyalty rather than a reward for merit‟

b. Professionals play second fiddle

Our Ministers
a. Busy with the Party work
b. More concerned with Public Image
c. Large Majority Engrossed in personal gains for
themselves / Party Bosses

Secondary Largesse for left-out Legislators
l Chairmanship of Public Corporations (State
Electricity Boards, Finance Corporation, Tourism
Corporation etc.)

l Constitution amended to facilitate this.

l Rajya Sabha members also entitled for same amount.
M.L.As also have their quota as fixed by States.

l Allocation of Rs. 5 crores (raised in 2011 from Rs.2
crores!) to be spent annually in their constituency as
per their choice under MPLADS (Member of
Parliament Local Area Development Scheme) (widely
misused & misappropriated).


If You Have a Hold You Have a Post !

Ministership, A Badge of Disloyalty !

Whether at Home or in Office,
Obsessed with Party Work !

Any Measures to Woo the Voters !

The rumour is he is looking for a couple of really
new faces to include in the new Cabinet!

Cabinet Composition / Functioning (U.S.A)
(a) Member of Parliament cannot join Cabinet. President
free to select the best talent

(b)Choice of cabinet solely left to the President

(c) Senate has full power to confirm or reject any member
of cabinet or any important appointments made by the
President

(d)Thorough vetting process. Even FBI provides
confidential report for all the ministers to the
President

(e) Total period 10 weeks for all the above process

f) Legislature has no vested interest in Cabinet as no
member can form part of the cabinet

g) Majority consists of Hardcore professionals/
Intellectuals / Eminent People

h) Full-time dedicated for a particular job for full term

i) No distraction of party politics or spend time on the
constituency or woo the voters

j) Not inclined to remain in limelight or waste time in
attending public functions / self publicity for being
elected


k) Not required to collect funds for themselves or
for the party for elections

l) No need to please M.L.A.s / M.P.s

a) Germany : Full freedom to Chancellor to select
his team from outside the Parliament.

b) Japan : PM can induct upto 50% ministers from
outside Parliament.
42

Cabinet – Obama
l Secretary of Energy - Renowned Physicist
l Secretary of Treasury - Master‟s degree in International Economics
l Secretary of Education - Chief Executive of the Chicago Public Schools
l Secretary of Labor - Graduate - California State Polytechnic University
l Attorney General - Graduate - Columbia University & Columbia Law School;
l Director of Central Intelligence Agency – Graduate & degree in Law from the
University of Santa Clara
l Secretary of Housing and Urban Development - Degrees in Public
Administration & Architecture;
l Commerce Secretary - Attended Yale & Boston University Law School;
l Secretary of Veterans Affairs - Has a career in the Army & was Chief of Staff
l Secretary of State - Graduate - Wellesley & degree in Law from Yale University;
l National Security Advisor – Mastered subtle art of coalition diplomacy during
wartime.
(Note: The above list is only indicative and not complete) 43

Cabinet – Clinton (1992-2000)
l The Secretary of State :- Graduate from the Stanford Law School;
l Secretary of Defence :- had worked in Pentagon with former
Defence Secretary, Robert McNamara. Degrees from Yale, Oxford
and MIT;
l National Security Advisor :- Graduate of Harvard and Princeton‟s
School of Public and International Affairs;
l Director of Central Intelligence :- Law degree from Yale University;
l Secretary of Health and Human Services :- Ex-Chancellor of the
University of Wisconsin. Selected by Business Week as one of the
top five managers in higher education;
l Chairperson of the Council of Economic Advisers :- Professor of
Economics at the University of California, Berkeley

(Note: The above list is only indicative and not complete)

Our present scenario
l No permanent Standing Committees for analysing or
scrutiny of legislation.

l Only 3 Permanent Committees, Public Accounts,
Public Undertakings and Estimates Commitee.

l Select Committees appointed on ad hoc basis for
few controversial bills

l Committees / Commission appointed from experts
outside Parliament reports on some subjects /
issues. Reports mostly consigned to cold storage.


l Voting mainly on party lines
l In-depth Analysis of Legislations lacking
l Legislations many a times based on vote-
catching gimmicks rather than real welfare
of the people
l Legislators not bothered to apply their mind
on legislations
l Committees appointed from Experts outside
Parliament to submit reports which rarely
get due attention


Issue of a Whip !

Legislation :- American system scores over us
l 23 Permanent Standing Committees in Lower
House and 18 in Upper House. Each committee
covers legislation related to its own field and
prepares detailed report
l After circulation of report – every member of
Congress enjoys full freedom to vote
l No whip issued by the Party
l Several countries have also emulated American
example and have now strong Committee system
e.g. Australia, Germany and even Britain is now
following this


Action of a Committee on a Bill
Members of Congress study the bill and in the process seek information and
advice from a variety of sources before recommending action
(The meaning of the word Congress means Assembly in English and in the USA it is used for
Parliament including both the houses).
Public hearings are Bill is reported out
held favorably in original
form (Rare)
A subcommittee is
appointed to make a OR
detailed analysis It is amended and
reported favorably
Committee OR
Studies by experts from both
government agencies and It is completely
public organizations are rewritten and
received reported favorably
OR
Research reports from
Legislative References Service, It is reported
Library of Congress are unfavorably
requested Congress
House of Representatives or Senate

Prejudices and Misconceptions about Presidential Democracy
l President with all executive powers and elected for a
full term may tend to be autocratic.
l Mental block in several intellectuals mind.
l The word „President‟ has perhaps become synonymous
with „dictator‟ as all dictations have labelled
themselves as „President‟ and none as a „Prime
Minister‟
l Hitler was elected under parliamentary democracy and
assumed powers of a dictator. We too had near
dictatorial rule during emergency declared by Smt.
Indira Gandhi
l Checks & Balances vital for any democracy
Presidential/Parliamentary 52

a) Well-defined system of checks & balances between
• President • Legislature • Judiciary

b) Legislature power fully vests with the Congress

c) Independent voting on legislations irrespective of
party lines

d) Congress fully empowered to defeat legislation
even if proposed by the President. As a balance,
President can veto on legislations not in line with
his manifesto or thinking. But Senate can counter
veto President‟s veto with 2/3rd majority
e) Opposition many times vote for the President and
vice versa
(contd.)
53

f) Senate fully empowered to confirm or reject all
important appointments including ministers
made by the President. Also empowered to
impeach any official in the legislative, judicial or
executive branch including the President if found
guilty of bribery, treason or other high crimes
g) Power to impeach President vests with the
Senate
h) Nixon was on the verge of being impeached when
he preferred to resign


j) Any foreign treaty has to be rectified by the
Senate
k) Senate has been given wide powers of
investigation of all departments of government
l) President can declare war but the Senate has the
power of withdrawal of troops within 60 days
m) President or Governor cannot remain in Power for
more than 2 terms
n) Judiciary fully empowered to repeal any
legislation violating fundamental rights provided
in the Constitution
55

Under constant surveillance!

No More!

President vs Congress – A Delicate Balance!

l Examples of Presidential democracy leaning
towards autocracy or not ideal models (All
models provide for direct election of President
and ensures stable government)

l Mexico – President empowered to pass all
legislations. They cannot be vetoed by legislature
or challenged in Court of Law

l Sri Lanka – Cabinet selected from legislature

l France – President empowered to dissolve
legislature (In USA, no President is allowed to do
so).

Corruption at an Alarming Proportion
l It has spread like Cancer and affected all levels of administration.
The most disturbing scenario, even armed forces and judiciary
are now affected with this virus.

l With every passing year, we are scaling new heights.

l The resources of the country whether mining leases or allotment
of land or award of contracts or even the postings in government
services etc. are all distributed like their personal „jagir‟ by our
politicians with the help of obliging babus.

l „I have no doubt that the bureaucracy is absolutely corrupt. I
have been referring them as conjoined twins, the political as well
as the executive legislature‟ – Santosh Hegde (Karnatak
Lokayukta)


Transparency International’s corruption perception
Index – India ranked 85 in 2008 (from 72 in 2004)

Some of the African countries such as Malavi, Ghana & South
Africa rank better than India

We have almost lost track of the scams.

Spectrum 2G – involving great Raja! and others (mind boggling
Rs.1.76 lakh crores!)

2010 Commonwealth games scandal.
Original estimate in 2003 - Rs.1620 crores.
In 2010 - the final cost Rs.30000 crores!


Adarsh Housing Scam involving politicians, bureaucrats,
defense and armed forces they have all made us forget
about the past scams.

Such as Printing of bogus stamp papers, etc. Maharastra
(Telgi scam - estimated Rs.10,000-25,000 crores), Fodder
scam in Bihar (Rs.950 crores involving Laloo Prasad
Yadav and his team), Jharkhand Mining scam (Rs.4000
crores – involving Madu Koda, Ex-Chief Minister of
Jharkhand and his team. These are only few.


Corruption – whom does it affect most?
l The Rich? The Middle Class? or The Poor?
l Everyone, but most affected, poorest of the poor.
(Based on the data provided by Shri N. Vittal, Ex-Chief Vigilance Commissioner
year 2001 (when he was invited as a Chief Guest to speak on the Seminar held
by the Forum on Minimizing Corruption in a Democratic Set-up).
l 31% of food grains and 36% of sugar meant for PDS (Public
Distribution System) is siphoned off. In terms of money this
comes to Rs.5000 crores p.a.
l In Delhi alone, every month Rs.40 crores collected as bribes by
Police and Municipal Officers from Hawkers, Vendors and Rickshaw
Pullers. (Shri Vittal managed to reduce this by convincing Vajpayee
to remove licensing for this class of people).

It is said that this is only the „Tip of the Iceberg‟

CBI has lost its credibility and has become a virtual tool at the
hands of the ruling party.
The most striking example
Directed by Supreme Court – March 2007 to probe case of
disproportionate assets of Mulayam Singh
• October 2007 CBI claims to have sufficient evidence
• July 2008 complete turn around by CBI (an outcome of
Mulayam‟s party giving support to UPA alliance to win No
confidence motion on civil nuclear deal ?)
• December 5, 2008 – CBI moved Supreme Court to withdraw
the application to register case against Yadav.
• Supreme Court Bench remarked „this clearly means CBI is not
acting independently but on behalf of the Government‟.


When things turned sour on distribution of seats in UP between Congress
and CPI alliance during Lok Sabha elections of 2009, CBI shamelessly
made another „U‟ turn stating that „it stands by its recommendation of
October 2007 that a disproportionate assets case is now made out
against Mulayam Singh‟. In the process, CBI has made a laughing stroke
of themselves.

Should we call CBI as

‘Corrupt Bureau of Investigation’ ?

or
‘Collaborating Bureau of Investigation’?


Political corruption – root cause
l „Yatha Raja Tatha Praja‟
l Relationship between MPs – MLAs – Ministers
l Prime Minister / Chief Minister – their very survival
often depends on MPs / MLAs / Ministers.
Irrespective of their (corrupt) background.
l PM / CM virtually helpless to take any action against
them
l MPs too have their own vested interest to bear
with corrupt C.M. / Prime Minister.
l Result :- Undeclared partnership of mutual
interest


l The honest bureaucrats are demoralised as the Money
openly demanded and paid for creamy (!) postings.

l Even the lowest recruitment of Hawaldar has a
price to be paid.

l Ministers have wide powers to influence bureaucrats
to toe their line, including power to transfer.

l Resulting in low morale of Bureaucrats

l Eventually Both prefer to serve each other‟s
interest .


Afraid of Holding Enquiries !

A Farcial Exercise !

Help, The Party and Me !

I am more honest than you are. There are eight
corruption charges against you and only six against me!

Effective Check on Corruption (Presidential Democracy)
l Corruption can never be eliminated but
minimized by inbuilt checks & Balances within
system

l Separation of Executive (President & his team)
and legislature play a vital role.

l President‟s team vetted by more than one
source before induction in the cabinet.
Confirmation of Senate necessary

l Total time period of 10 weeks for cabinet to be
sworn-in after election of the President.


l The Congress (Legislature) has no vested interest
as Legislatures do not part of cabinet.

l Provides independence to stand against President
or his Cabinet even if they belong to same party as
President‟s.

l President not reluctant to investigate or remove a
corrupt minister as it does not affect his stability.

l Ministers themselves have no reason to collect
funds in the name of Party as they are non-political

l Independent Judiciary also a contributing factor.


lWhat Lord Buddha had said 2500 years ago


Extracts from “The Teaching of Buddha” – Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai. (8 million
copies published in 39 languages)

Buddhism was a major religion in India till 10-11 centuries after his
death. It must have had profound effect on the erstwhile rulers as the
Golden era of India coincided with this period.

In a truly democratic presidential system where the Cabinet is
selected based on background and proven track record of
ministers, there is every possibility that there may be return of
Golden Era to India.

What are Forum‟s views on Lokpal Bill?
l Following Annaji‟s fast and nation wide agitation the government was under tremendous
pressure for passing Lokpal Bill.

l Lokpal – An independent authority empowered to investigate and prosecute any bureaucrat
or politician for corruption charges.

l Lokpal cannot be panacea for eradicating corruption

l The most effective and logical way would be to ensure appointment of honest and capable
people at top and have a system of checks and balances in place.

l When large majority of politicians and bureaucrats are outright corrupt, how many Lokpals
or how large a mechanism of Lokpal would be required and what will be the guarantee that
the institution of Lokpal itself will remain clean?

l The institution of Lokpal may not be necessary if we have legislature where all members of
both the houses such as in USA the Senate (having 100 members) and Lower House (having
421 members) are all able to play their due role. It may have more positive and effective
role to play as a final recourse.


Promotion of Leadership Qualities
l Failure to produce leaders who could command
confidence of the people
l The quality of leadership has gone down over a period of
time. Is it the failure of system or the people?
l Not encouraged under our present system.
l The tenure of Prime Minister or Chief Ministers is insecure
l Their hands are tied down whether it is
l Selection of ministers or
l Implementation of policies or
l Taking action against incompetent and corrupt ministers
etc.
l They have to perforce please everybody including Delhi-
Durbar.

l Our large metropolitan cities have failed to
provide grass-root leaders.

l Our Mayors elected for a short tenure are mere
figure heads / show pieces – their names not
known to citizens even when in office.

l Our M.Ps. or State Legislators lack confidence as
they have hardly any freedom to vote
independently on major issues.


Mayor – Our City Level Leader
Mere Show Piece !

Mayoral Go-Round!

Looking to Delhi Durbar for Survival!

Presidential System more conducive for
evolution of leadership

l The direct election of the Mayor (City level) or
Governor (State level) or President at (National level)
and giving them free hand to induct the best talent
with security of tenure boosts their confidence

l Based on their performance, Governors / Mayors get
groomed for higher level leadership

l Senators also form an important link for higher level
leadership


l Senators given adequate allowance to maintain capable
support staff for their office in Washington DC and also
in important cities in the State
l Senate has wide powers to check the President

l They do not form part of President‟s Cabinet & hence no
vested interest to support President
l Independence to vote on any legislation
l All these create confidence for higher level leadership
l The restriction of tenure of 2 terms for President or
Governor induces fresh talent
l Mayor Governor / Senator Vice-President /
President

Impact of caste, religion and
regional factors – a comparison
Our present scenario (Parliamentary model)
l Above factors dominant. Easier to get elected
playing this card for Municipal or Assembly or even
Lok Sabha seat.
l Later on even possible for such persons to play
dominant role by managing to get cabinet post or
even C.M.‟s by manipulation in party.
Presidential Democracy.
l Entire country / state / city become a single
constituency for election as a President / Governor
/ Mayor.
Copyright. Jashwant B. Mehta 85

Presidential Democracy.
l Difficult to play the card of caste / religion for
being elected as head of the nation / state / city

l Forces candidates for President/Governor/Mayor
post to rise above narrow sectarian consideration
of caste, community or religion and after elections
also due to security of tenure not tempted or
required to oblige or play such a game.

l Governor Wallace a racial leader could get 13.5%
vote but had no role to play.

l Vote bank politics discouraged.

l “Presidential Democracy will enable the country to be free from
the grip of the professional politicians having vested interest. It
will provide for better stability, help national integration and will
enable the induction of talented people in the Cabinet.”
Late Shri J.R.D. Tata (Eminent Industrialist)

l “My first proposal is, therefore, to separate entirely the legislative
from the executive function by making it impossible for any
member of the legislature to hold any office of profit under the
Government including Ministership…………“My second proposal is
that the President or the Governor will hold office for fixed term of
years without any possibility of his removal during the term,
except by impeachment of acts of moral delinquency”.
Late Shri B. K. Nehru (Eminent Civil Servant & Former
Ambassador to U.S.A. & High Commissioner to U.K.)


l “Our parliamentary system has entered the era of instability where
governments survive on the mercy of caste and group based bosses. Under
the existing arrangement a Prime Minister or a Chief Minister depends upon
the support of MPs and MLAs. A President under the Presidential System,
depends upon the entire national electorate and his tenure is secured for a
fixed term. Therefore, no unprincipled compromises occur”.
Late Shri Chimanbhai Mehta (Former Union Cabinet Minister)

l “The two basic elements we need are ……
 The head of the Executive, the President, is directly elected.
 He is free to select as his ministers person from within or outside the
legislature”
Shri Arun Shourie (eminent Journalist and former Union Cabinet Minister)

l “……I am convinced that the democratic presidential system – as it prevails
in the United States of America and in France – would be better suited to
India than the Westminster model which prevails today.”
Late Shri N.A. Palkhivala (Eminent Jurist)

l “It often happens that (in the U.S.A.) the Democrats support the
President not only by their votes but also by their speeches.
Similarly, it also often happens that the Republican members vote
and speak against proposal by the President who belongs to their
party. It means that the members are elected like the President on
party tickets but after election they cease, in practice, to belong to
the party and act in a way which they consider best for the nation. It
may therefore be said truly that they have always a national
Government and not a party Government in office. We must
investigate and find if this analysis is correct. If so, we must then
consider how far we are right in copying the British party system in
all its details”.

Late Dr. Rajendra Prasad (Former President of India)


Extracts from Shri M.N. Venkatachaliah‟s letter (dt. February 14, 2011)
addressed to the Author
“I really enjoyed the discussion we had on your views and analysis of the
Presidential System. Frankly after listening to your meticulous analysis of the
comparative merits, I must say I am veering around to your view. I am
convinced that your objective is a pure one and is not aimed at pursuit of any
political gains but to the promotion of a nationalist ideology. I am pleasantly
amazed that our country still has persons like you. You have no personal
ambitions in the matter. It is indeed gratifying that a highly qualified Engineer
and Technologist like you should be taking such great interest in promoting a
larger national cause. You have taken up this agenda of political reforms with no
other expectation than good of the country at large. As it is, the political system
in the country is on the verge of collapse and unless some drastic changes are
ushered-in the future seems utterly bleak and hopeless.”

With warm personal regards,
Yours sincerely,
M.N. Venkatachaliah
Former Chief Justice of India
(Chairman – Constitutional Reforms Commission – 2002)

Part II


Selection of candidates by political parties
for Lok Sabha / Rajya Sabha / State
Legislature and Municipal bodies
l The party tickets decided by party leaders as per
their choice and whims

l Promotes bossism. Small boss, big boss and the
biggest of all who decide Lok Sabha & Rajya
Sabha candidates

l These bosses are either powerful individuals or a
coterie where mutual interests are served


Criteria for Selection
l Merit – a secondary qualification. Loyalty to
party leaders main criteria

l Candidates ability to raise resources and fill up
party coffers by any means – also an important
criteria

l Even criminal record acceptable if candidate‟s
ability to attract votes proved

l The electorate including party members have
hardly any voice


Preference also for close relations including
family members of prominent politicians for
nominations

 Nehru / Indira Gandhi / Rajiv Gandhi / Sanjay Gandhi
/ Sonia Gandhi / Rahul Gandhi

 Sharad Pawar / Ajit Pawar / Supriya Sule

 Shaikh Abdulla / Farooq Abdulla / Omar Abdulla

 Murali Deora / Milind Deora

 Karunanidhi / Azhagiri / Stalin / Kanimozhi

………. the list is pretty long.

Consequences
l As the party grows and becomes bigger, it gets
degenerated as honest, competent candidates often
side tracked
l Promotes „Chamchagiri‟. The party politics becomes
dirtier and dirtier and governance deteriorates
l Difficult for capable & honest people to get into
main-stream politics
l Out of sheer frustration they form new parties
l Presently there are over 1500 registered political
parties in our country. Many formed with good
intentions by well meaning people. (Most of them
find it difficult without adequate means etc. to make
a head way.)

l The major political parties themselves split often due
to clash among the party leaders over distribution of
tickets

l Process of fragmentation & formulation of new
parties encouraged

l Rejected candidates join other parties or stand as
independents

l They become chief pawns of power-play


No Ticket – No Cap !

What is the solution?
l Primary system of elections in the USA – a major
reform in this direction
l Selection process itself made more democratic.
Mandatory for all political parties to hold elections
for nominations of candidates for legislature,
Governor and also President
l These elections popularly called „primaries‟ are held
under secret ballot under state supervision
l Many states permit non-party members to vote in
primaries. However, the voters have to select party
of their choice and cannot vote for more than one
party.


l Winner of these primaries entitled to get party-ticket
for main election
l Selection of the candidates not at the whims and
fancies of Party leaders
l Encourages deserving and capable people to join
main-stream political parties as they do not have to
beg for tickets to party bosses
l Major political parties itself will benefit/rejunevate
with inclusion of such meritorious candidates.
l Promotes healthy 2-party system. Democrats and
Republics have remained as 2 major main stream
political parties
l It will also prevent mushrooming of new parties.


l Although bit expensive, overall process has lots
of advantages
l While in U.S., this is mandatory, many other
countries have also adopted some reforms in this
direction
l In Germany, the candidate is selected based in a
secret ballot in an Assembly of Party members or
General Assembly of Party Representatives

l If democracy is of the people, for the people and
by the people, there is no better way than to
have the very people participate in the selection
process of the candidates to be nominated by the
Parties in a democratic manner

Mixed Proportional System
• Our present electoral system of ‘first-past-the-post’ system
i.e. candidate getting highest votes declared elected does not
truly reflect the popularity of parties

• A small swing in percentage of popular votes drastically
changes final tally of seats.

• A candidate is declared elected inspite of getting lot more
more votes (percentage wise) cast against him.

• The chances of distortion more in a multi-party system
• A party gaining 30% votes many end up getting 60% seats
Forum for Presidential Democracy • 101

Illustration of Distorted Results :-
Tamilnadu State Election
1989 1991
% of votes Seats Remarks % of votes Seats Remarks
AIADMK 21.5 27 All 3 parties 44.4 163 AIADMK &
Congress 20.2 26 contested 15.4 61 Congress formed
DMK 33.3 151 elections 21.4 1 an alliance
independently
Madhya Pradesh State Election
Year Congress BJP
% of votes Seats % of votes Seats
1998 40.6 172 39.3 119
1993 40.7 174 38.8 117
1990 33.4 56 39.1 220
1985 48.8 250 32.4 58
1980 47.5 246 30.3 60


• Reforms introduced in several European countries
• Seats allotted based on the basis of percentage of votes
polled by parties and not on ‘first past the post’ system.
Popularly called ‘proportionate representation’ system
(Parties getting 30% votes will get 30% seats – Parties
getting 20% votes will get 20% seats)
• It has its own drawbacks as some of the constituencies may
remain unrepresented and could lead to unstable
governments.
•More pragmatic solution – Mixed Proportional
Representation
• Germany has successfully introduced this system

•50% of seats in legislature allotted as per present system
•
•50% seats apportioned to parties as per percentage of votes
polled by them

•This will offset the distorted version common in our system
•Parties gaining say 30% seats assured of winning minimum
15% seats

•Further, improvisation can be made giving 2 choices to
people. One for the candidate of his choice belonging to any
party, one for the party of his choice, seats equally divided
for candidates as well as for party percentage.

Preventing Criminals to Join Politics

l A large number of our legislators (M.P.s &
M.L.A.s) have criminal background.

l Out of 543 M.Ps – more than 25% face
criminal charges, 84 for murder and
extortion.

l Some of them also inducted in Cabinet.


l Intentions to contest elections & ensure victory is to
use political clout to influence Government
machinery including Police etc. to delay or tone down
and dismiss their pending criminal cases.

l Priority trial on day to day basis for all elected
representatives facing criminal charges

l Such a provision will prevent them from contesting
elections.

106

Appointment of National Judicial Commission
l Commission to consist of representatives from
judiciary, executive & legislature.

l Appointment of judges by the President as per
recommendations of Commission.

l Presently Supreme Court is sole authority to appoint
judges in higher courts. Has led to SC arrogating
itself.

l Should be empowered to try any errant Judge and if
found guilty, send the recommendation to President
for removal.


Supreme Court Benches to be in
Metropolitan cities –
Mumbai, Delhi, Calcutta & Chennai
l Opposition from Supreme Court itself.

l Has led to tremendous hardship for people &
increased litigation costs abnormally for common
man.

l Bombay High Court has benches in Nagpur & Goa

l Pakistan – a small country has a bench in other
city.


Expediting the justice
l Abnormal delays. Cases drag on to decades
together. No. of judges most inadequate. Such
abnormal delays have led to people‟s loss of faith
in judiciary.

l Present strength 10.5 judges per million
population. Directed by Supreme Court to
increase to 50 per million.

l U.K. – 51 judges per million, Canada – 75 judges
per million, USA 107 judges per million.


Is our Constitution a sacred cow?
“While most of us have regarded Dr. Ambedkar as the
framer of our Constitution, he himself had repudiated this
claim in no uncertain positive words. He told the Rajya
Sabha on 2 September 1953.

„Sir, my friends tell me that I have made the
Constitution. But I am quite prepared to say that I
shall be the first person to burn it out. I do not want
it. It does not suit anybody…‟ (Source : „The Parliamentary
System‟ by Arun Shourie, Edition 2007 pp 18).

It is nay certain that had Dr. Ambedkar lived long enough to watch
the performance of the system that has thrown up the type of
persons in our legislature and council of ministers then he would
have put his thoughts in practice.” 110

Possible Road map
l The proposed change over to alternate political system
does not involve any alteration to basic structure of the
constitution as it guarantees the fundamental rights and
independence of the judiciary.

l Possible by valid amendment to the constitution under
Article 368 (2) which requires 2/3rd majority of
Parliament.

l It will also require ratification by legislatures of not less
than half of the states.

l Consensus necessary among political parties for such an
amendment to Constitution (especially leaders).


l Can our political parties rise to the occasion in the
best interest of the country? Or they have a vested
interest in the continuance of present system as
such a change would deprive them of coveted
„ministerial gaddis‟ and other offices of profit to
which they are accustomed to?

l No provision for referendum in Indian Constitution.

l France switched over to Presidential Democracy
after referendum when 79.2% of votes approved it
and Sri Lanka switched over after United National
Party led by Jayavardene made it a main plank of
election manifesto and won elections with thumping
majority in legislature (140 out of 168 seats).

Option II
l A nation-wide awareness campaign is necessary
with participation and sincere efforts of all like-
minded and disconcerting citizens.
l Stupendous task cannot be achieved by few solitary
individuals.
l Eminent people from various walks of life have time and
again strongly endorsed presidential democracy.
Unfortunately, no sincere efforts have been forth-coming

l Such a campaign should aim at convincing all
sections of society that a truly democratic
presidential system is in best interest of all.
l Ignorance even at higher levels. Many intellectuals
still carry notion it is an autocratic system where the
President all too powerful.

l For such a nation-wide awareness campaign to succeed,
the support of opinion-makers/celebrities will be of
great help. E.g.
l Film-industry – Amir Khan, Amitabh Bachchan,
Chiranjeevi, Rajnikant etc. The popularity / impact of
stars tremendous in Indian society. E.g. N.T. Ramarao –
founded Telugu Desam in early 80s and managed to
secure thumping majority against Congress led by Indira
Gandhi.
l M.G. Ramachandran separated from DMK and founded
AIADMK in late 70s. DMK was routed and even today
also his picture forms a part of AIADMK campaign.
l Spiritual leaders – Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Baba Ramdev
have great mass-appeal.

l Till now, no voice raised or initiative taken from
Business & Industry leaders to change the system.
Endorsement and involvement from respected business
leaders such as – Aziz Premji, Narayan Murthy will also
be of great help.

l If this power point presentation has appealed to you
please inform as many of your friends, relatives and
acquaintances. It is included in our Website
www.presidentialdemocracy.org

l You can be our spokesman, and spread awareness by
arranging a talk or make a presentation yourself in
your circle etc.

l The power-point presentation made herewith is
proposed to be translated in all regional languages so
that it may reach masses.

Registration of Forum For Presidential
Democracy as a political party.
l There are over 1500 registered political parties in the
country. Why one more party?

l Many of these parties have been formed with the best of
intentions by well-meaning individuals. Unfortunately, not
a single party including those founded by these well
meaning individuals have the change of political system in
their manifesto.

l Forum is the first political party with the sole objective to
change the system. It also aims to bring all such parties
founded by well-meaning people to a common platform for
a change.


l The Forum does not harbour any political ambitions. It strongly feels
that after successful awareness campaign, there will be enough
number of committed persons who will carry this mission forward.

l For a Political Party registered u/s. 29 A of the Representation of the
Peoples Act 1951, Individual / Company donations are fully
exempted u/s. 80 GGC of I.T. Act and u/s. 80 GGB of I.T. Act.
respectively.

l Forum is eligible to receive such donations.

l It is necessary for a successful nation wide campaign to mobilise
funds. Yours support by way of donation and active participation in
Forum‟s building up an organisation is most welcome.

l Let us not talk, criticize and soon forget. There is an alternative
model. Please render your valuable support.


l There are 2 classes of people who enter politics,
Class 1 (Large majority) to satisfy their

(i) lust for power or (ii) strong desire for fame
(iii) or greed for money (iv) combination of all

l Who can really bring about the change?

l Those who remain above all these temptations /human
weaknesses such as

Gandhiji Patel Jayprakash Narayan
Ambedkar Tilak Kriplani
& Other such leaders

l “The tyranny of a Prince in an oligarchy is not
so dangerous to the public welfare as the
apathy of a citizen in a democracy”.
Montesquieu
l “A bad government is the inevitable
consequence of an indifferent electorate.
Politics will never be cleaner, and our
economic future will never be brighter, unless
and until our citizens are willing to give of
themselves to the land which gave them
birth.”
N.A. Palkhivala

If each seed were to say :
One seed does not make a field,
There would be no harvest.

If each of us were to say :
One person does not make the
difference,
The system can never change

You and I do make the
difference.
Begin today and make the
difference.

THANK YOU

Questpresentation1

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (16)

Similar to Questpresentation1

Similar to Questpresentation1 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Questpresentation1