MV Kamath
The general elections have not even begun but already there is talk about who should be the next Prime Minister. There are many aspirants to the throne. The Congress has made it known that should the UPA coalition get back to power, the automatic choice of Prime Minister would be Dr Manmohan Singh. He seems to be in reasonable good health. He may not have distinguished himself as Prime Minister — the entire approach to Pakistan following the jihadi attack on Mumbai was seemingly devised and implemented by the External Affairs Minister, Pranab Mukherjee, whose role was appreciated even by BJP leader LK Advani — but he is the archetypal non-interventionist, the one who is all things to all men. Disturbing him could lead to needless infighting among leaders of the coalition parties.
Sharad Pawar has already thrown his hat in the ring. Worse, the argument is made that the next Prime Minister should be a Maharashtrian. A Maharashtrian? Is prime ministership reckoned in terms of the candidate’s linguistic affiliation or should it be in terms of a person’s national standing? What are we coming to?
Meanwhile, Mayavati, with a reputation for corruption, has also set her eyes on the prime ministerial gaddi. To say the least, it is sickening. One supposes that there are others in the line, including Deve Gowda and Jayalalitha, and one should not be surprised if even that joker, Lalu Prasad, entertains such ambitions, and it does not matter if no one in any hamlet in Rajasthan or Madhya Pradesh or the backwoods of Orissa or Karnataka has ever heard their names.
Who doth ambition shun, as Shakespeare wisely wrote. Not our unworthy politicians. The post of India’s prime ministership is for sale, like the Mahatma’s chappals and watch. He who can afford to buy it, gets it. It is to this sorry state of affairs has Indian democracy reduced itself. The trouble is that we do not have any national leaders any longer. Not even a Jayaprakash Narayan. The one and only party — the Indian National Congress — which fought for freedom has been reduced to a state of servility. Such was the state of affairs when Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated that the party that once was led by supermen like Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel, Rajendra Prasad and C Rajagopalchariar felt it necessary to invite Rajiv’s spouse to take over the party’s responsibilities in an act of self-denigration unheard of in the history of India. IK Gujral was hardly known beyond the boundaries of Punjab, nor Charan Singh beyond Uttar Pradesh. PV Narasimha Rao at least could have some claim to scholarship. But what were Deve Gowda’s qualifications? What kind of a figure would he have struck at an international conference?
The Prime Minister’s post has been reduced to that of a CEO and India’s to that of a corporation. It is as if anybody can be a Prime Minister. He or she does not have to be a known public figure. What is expected of such a person is a talent of manoeuvring. And the public be damned. The public has no voice in the choice of a Prime Minister. It has blindly to accept whoever is thrust on it. We have reached such a stage that not talent or a record of public service, nor acknowledged greatness in some field of human activity matter any longer. It is politics, politics all the way. It there a way out of this mess we find ourselves in? Do we endlessly have to go through the agony of coalition governments that are unrepresentative of the people? Yes, there is a solution.
It has often been suggested and has just as often been rejected. Plainly put, it is acceptance of the presidential form of government. Under such a system, third fronts will become an anachronism. Why do we need a presidential form of government? Here is why: firstly, India has become politically more divisive and fragmented. Secondly, in India no one political party can truly claim to have attained national stature. Thirdly, politics has degenerated to the point that criminals get elected and can be bought over. Fourthly, critical portfolios in the Central cabinet are allotted not on the professional competence of the candidate but under threat of withdrawal by a coalition partner. And lastly, a coalition government is under constant threat from coalition partners — remember the Leftist role in the matter of the 123 Agreement? — and will necessarily have to make compromises in order to survive.
The parliamentary form of democracy has outlived its use and has now become a burden on the country worthy of being discarded. Under a presidential form of government the candidate has to prove his worth, in addition to his total capabilities. He will thus have to travel extensively and make himself familiar to every household in India, as did Barak Obama in the United States of America. He has to show his worth in more ways than one. He has to be seen and heard, so that the public can assess his worth impartially. If elected he can have a well-knit team of ministers who have one vision, one aim, one agreed plan of action. Here, caste will have no place and the very concept will be completely erased, adding to the sense of unity of the people. As matters stand, despite all tall talk of secularism, politics is guided by caste considerations, promoting division. Under a presidential system that becomes a thing of the past.
The present parliamentary system has failed miserably. It has promoted huge jumbo cabinets in order to satisfy the demands of coalition partners greedy for ministerial posts, costing the government huge piles of money. What is worse, it has promoted corruption on a scale undreamt of in the past. All this is not to say that a parliamentary form of government is per se inadvisable. In a small country, with, say, just two political parties in the fray, parliamentary system would be ideal. Indeed, it could only be effective. But in a huge country like India, parliamentary form of government has turned out to be a burden and a hurdle to fast progress. It has to be given the go-by.
The formation of a Third Front presently in India is an admission of the failure of the parliamentary form of government. There have been third fronts elsewhere in the world but they were failures. There were times when Britain with a two-party system had a third party, the Liberal Party. But it was acceptable because it was not coalitional. The kind of a Third Front we now witness in India is suicidal and an open invitation to disaster. Unprincipled and with no common vision, save an open hatred of both the Congress and the BJP, it is best confined to a political waste paper basket. THE SENTINEL
The general elections have not even begun but already there is talk about who should be the next Prime Minister. There are many aspirants to the throne. The Congress has made it known that should the UPA coalition get back to power, the automatic choice of Prime Minister would be Dr Manmohan Singh. He seems to be in reasonable good health. He may not have distinguished himself as Prime Minister — the entire approach to Pakistan following the jihadi attack on Mumbai was seemingly devised and implemented by the External Affairs Minister, Pranab Mukherjee, whose role was appreciated even by BJP leader LK Advani — but he is the archetypal non-interventionist, the one who is all things to all men. Disturbing him could lead to needless infighting among leaders of the coalition parties.
Sharad Pawar has already thrown his hat in the ring. Worse, the argument is made that the next Prime Minister should be a Maharashtrian. A Maharashtrian? Is prime ministership reckoned in terms of the candidate’s linguistic affiliation or should it be in terms of a person’s national standing? What are we coming to?
Meanwhile, Mayavati, with a reputation for corruption, has also set her eyes on the prime ministerial gaddi. To say the least, it is sickening. One supposes that there are others in the line, including Deve Gowda and Jayalalitha, and one should not be surprised if even that joker, Lalu Prasad, entertains such ambitions, and it does not matter if no one in any hamlet in Rajasthan or Madhya Pradesh or the backwoods of Orissa or Karnataka has ever heard their names.
Who doth ambition shun, as Shakespeare wisely wrote. Not our unworthy politicians. The post of India’s prime ministership is for sale, like the Mahatma’s chappals and watch. He who can afford to buy it, gets it. It is to this sorry state of affairs has Indian democracy reduced itself. The trouble is that we do not have any national leaders any longer. Not even a Jayaprakash Narayan. The one and only party — the Indian National Congress — which fought for freedom has been reduced to a state of servility. Such was the state of affairs when Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated that the party that once was led by supermen like Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel, Rajendra Prasad and C Rajagopalchariar felt it necessary to invite Rajiv’s spouse to take over the party’s responsibilities in an act of self-denigration unheard of in the history of India. IK Gujral was hardly known beyond the boundaries of Punjab, nor Charan Singh beyond Uttar Pradesh. PV Narasimha Rao at least could have some claim to scholarship. But what were Deve Gowda’s qualifications? What kind of a figure would he have struck at an international conference?
The Prime Minister’s post has been reduced to that of a CEO and India’s to that of a corporation. It is as if anybody can be a Prime Minister. He or she does not have to be a known public figure. What is expected of such a person is a talent of manoeuvring. And the public be damned. The public has no voice in the choice of a Prime Minister. It has blindly to accept whoever is thrust on it. We have reached such a stage that not talent or a record of public service, nor acknowledged greatness in some field of human activity matter any longer. It is politics, politics all the way. It there a way out of this mess we find ourselves in? Do we endlessly have to go through the agony of coalition governments that are unrepresentative of the people? Yes, there is a solution.
It has often been suggested and has just as often been rejected. Plainly put, it is acceptance of the presidential form of government. Under such a system, third fronts will become an anachronism. Why do we need a presidential form of government? Here is why: firstly, India has become politically more divisive and fragmented. Secondly, in India no one political party can truly claim to have attained national stature. Thirdly, politics has degenerated to the point that criminals get elected and can be bought over. Fourthly, critical portfolios in the Central cabinet are allotted not on the professional competence of the candidate but under threat of withdrawal by a coalition partner. And lastly, a coalition government is under constant threat from coalition partners — remember the Leftist role in the matter of the 123 Agreement? — and will necessarily have to make compromises in order to survive.
The parliamentary form of democracy has outlived its use and has now become a burden on the country worthy of being discarded. Under a presidential form of government the candidate has to prove his worth, in addition to his total capabilities. He will thus have to travel extensively and make himself familiar to every household in India, as did Barak Obama in the United States of America. He has to show his worth in more ways than one. He has to be seen and heard, so that the public can assess his worth impartially. If elected he can have a well-knit team of ministers who have one vision, one aim, one agreed plan of action. Here, caste will have no place and the very concept will be completely erased, adding to the sense of unity of the people. As matters stand, despite all tall talk of secularism, politics is guided by caste considerations, promoting division. Under a presidential system that becomes a thing of the past.
The present parliamentary system has failed miserably. It has promoted huge jumbo cabinets in order to satisfy the demands of coalition partners greedy for ministerial posts, costing the government huge piles of money. What is worse, it has promoted corruption on a scale undreamt of in the past. All this is not to say that a parliamentary form of government is per se inadvisable. In a small country, with, say, just two political parties in the fray, parliamentary system would be ideal. Indeed, it could only be effective. But in a huge country like India, parliamentary form of government has turned out to be a burden and a hurdle to fast progress. It has to be given the go-by.
The formation of a Third Front presently in India is an admission of the failure of the parliamentary form of government. There have been third fronts elsewhere in the world but they were failures. There were times when Britain with a two-party system had a third party, the Liberal Party. But it was acceptable because it was not coalitional. The kind of a Third Front we now witness in India is suicidal and an open invitation to disaster. Unprincipled and with no common vision, save an open hatred of both the Congress and the BJP, it is best confined to a political waste paper basket. THE SENTINEL
No comments:
Post a Comment