There is something arresting in Home Minister L.K. Advani's suggestion that a presidential form of government could rid India of its chronic instability. Having suffered the emasculation of successive prime ministers by a coalition system conducive only to blackmail, India may well welcome the idea of a directly elected chief executive. If only it were so easy to decide.In some respects, the arguments against a change in the current parliamentary system are equally cogent. Over a half-century, it has served the cause of Indian democracy, if not efficiency. Parliament's composition has changed over the years, reflecting the country's evolving sociology. For at least some traditionally repressed groups, economic gain has translated into political power.A case in point is the assertive OBC becoming the dominant factor in the polity. It is evidence of parliamentary democracy keeping pace with social transformation. Willy-nilly, a presidential system could subvert this process. Unlike today, the cabinet will not necessarily be drawn from - nor be as answerable to - Parliament.Predictably, Advani's remarks have evoked responses along party lines. The BJP has found logic in its leader's comments, while the Congress and the United Front have detected an authoritarian conspiracy. Whatever the initial rhetoric, it is imperative that it be followed by a genuine debate, ideally in the Lok Sabha. It is obvious the present system is at times excruciatingly self-defeating. From merely an essential input, politics is now the scourge of governance. It is essential to loosen this nexus without entirely breaking it. The presidential system could be the way out; so could many others. Yet, to insist that no reform is required is to play the ostrich. If the Constitution of India were so perfect, it would not have had to be amended some 80 times. In a democracy, nothing is sacrosanct - nothing, except democracy itself.Published By: AtMigration Published On: May 18, 1998--- ENDS ---
_083012090640.jpg)