The continuous disruption of the legislative business of Parliament in the winter session for 16 days consecutively by opposition parties led by the 130-year-old Congress, has cast a pall of gloom over the future of India’s democratic polity. It is pertinent to note that the winter session was a near deadlock without the conduct of any legislative business, except passage of six bills. However the long-pending and critically important Goods and Services Tax (GST) Bill, tabled in Parliament by the Congress-led UPA II government before it was voted out of office in May 2014, has been postponed to April 2017. The barren winter session follows the completely washed out 24-day monsoon session.
Thus for the past two sessions, the nation has witnessed ill-behaved, unruly MPs (members of Parliament) storming the wells of both houses, shouting slogans and preventing the conduct of business in the Lok and Rajya Sabha. Against this it’s noteworthy that the business of the House of Commons or House of Lords (which together constitute the British Parliament) has not been adjourned on such grounds for over 300 years.
The reckless misbehaviour of MPs cutting across all political parties — before it was voted to power in General Election 2014, the BJP stalled the 15th Parliament for two entire sessions by similar misconduct — indicates that a collective madness has seized the country’s political class. Particularly since it’s common knowledge that passage of the long-pending GST Bill will ease inter-state trade and commerce and belatedly transform India into a common market for goods and services, which could well add a massive 2 percent points, i.e, Rs.2.48 lakh crore to the GDP annually. Clearly, our MPs don’t seem to give a whit about the national interest and common good.
In the circumstances, it’s quite clear that the quality of MPs — one fourth of whom have serious criminal charges pending against them and 25 percent have rock-bottom educational qualifications — in India’s Parliament has plunged to such depths that they are beyond reform. Therefore this is an appropriate time for right-thinking citizens to re-examine the dormant proposal of an American or French style presidential form of democratic governance which would reduce and limit the legislative and administrative powers of Parliament.
In light of the reality that general elections are already being contested in presidential style by strong leaders of all parties, a switch to the presidential system should be seriously considered. The presidential system also offers the advantage of a directly elected President being empowered to appoint competent professionals from all walks of life as ministers, a felt need of the Indian economy.
Of course the presidential system isn’t perfect. But after 65 years of the parliamentary form during which the country has experienced a downward slide on every parameter of national development, the people have nothing to lose by experimenting with an alternative form of democratic governance.
Irrational criticism of sensible verdict
The sanctification of the haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2015 by a bench of the Supreme Court on December 10, has attracted considerable informed comment and debate in the mainstream (print) media.
The provisions of the Act make it mandatory for candidates aspiring to become elected rural government (panchayats) representatives of the people, to provide proof of having passed the class X school-leaving examination, with the bar set lower (class VIII and V) for historically underprivileged Dalit men and women. Moreover all candidates should have toilets at home with all electricity dues and bank loans cleared, to become eligible to file their nominations.
The burden of critics of the apex court’s judgement is that these eligibility criteria are not applicable to candidates for election to municipal corporations, state legislative assemblies and indeed, Parliament under the Representation of People Act, 1951.
In its judgement the Supreme Court bench ruled that the disqualifications stipulated by the Haryana Amendment Act are a reasonable restriction on people’s constitutional right to contest elections. “It is only education which gives a human being the power to discriminate between right and wrong, good and bad,” opined the two-judge bench adding that the stipulation in the Act that citizens contesting for civic governance offices should have toilets at home is perfectly reasonable.
Curiously, this common-sense verdict, which stresses the necessity of citizens aspiring to public office having minimal reading, writing and decision-making skills, has been roundly criticised by several liberal newspapers. A lead edit in The Economic Times (December 15) describes the court’s judgement as “morally abhorrent and anti-democratic”. Likewise describing the Act and its validation by the apex court as “a setback for the world’s largest democracy”, The Hindu (December 12) comments: “It is dangerously illiberal to debar citizens from contesting elections when they are able to fulfil their responsibilities as panchs, or legislators, as the case may be.”
From a sentimental perspective, it’s easy to sympathise with this populist line of argument. But the contention that mass illiteracy is the consequence of the failure of the State to provide free and compulsory education is only partially correct. There’s also a corresponding duty of citizens to meet the State half-way and make strenuous efforts to avail publicly-funded elementary education. If they fail to do so, disqualification from running for public office — but not from voting — is clearly a reasonable restriction in the public interest inasmuch as it incentivises citizens to acquire elementary education.
Therefore this common-sense verdict which precludes maladministration by patently unqualified individuals, needs to be welcomed rather than excoriated.