Political
Reforms
Towards a two (plus left) party system for a stable and strong Indian polity
After nearly sixty years of IndiaⳠrepublic came in to existence and as we are approaching towards the countryⳠ15th general elections, the need for a two party system never seems to have been greater. From the working of different national and regional parties and the chaotic political atmosphere that the country is slowly plunging into, there is now an urgent need for re-organising the Indian political party system, so that in the shortest term possible, the country can have a two party system for governing the country at the center.
Our constitution makers designed the state apparatus based on WestminsterⳠmodel of UK, which has two major political parties, whose leaders are elected beforehand to lead before the elections. There is a clear choice before the electorate. Leaders generally stay at the helm for no more than ten years. The party system is so strong that even the strongest leaders have to bow down before the party machinery. The iron lady Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair in fact were removed while they were in power.
As for the Indian political system, after sixty years, the whole scenario is reduced to a butt of joke. From the days of stable governments led by Congress, which ruled for nearly thirty years at a stretch, we moved to a coalition-era, and now we are reduced to small parties bidding for power in the strangest manner. We are clearly ignoring the dangers of such fractured political system for a large and diverse country like India, which is now faced with serious challenges from across the border. India is facing a number of serious problems and many of these can be attributed to political failures or lack of existence of strong national parties at the centre and lack of methodology which can throw up strong and independent leaders for running the country.
On several occasions in the past, we came very close to the cherished objective of two or three party system. In 1977, an omnibus combination called Janata Party had emerged to compete with Congress for power at the center. But alas, we could not hold on to it, as the personal ambitions of some of the leaders wrecked that combination. Again in 1989, the Janata Dal led by V P Singh along with other major parties like BJP, Congress and the Left parties offered a more organised political choice before the electorate. However, once again, the political process slipped in to political fission than fusion. With the current crop of a number of smaller parties competing for power at the center, the omens are not good. The country is bound to be become weaker at the center, the prime ministerⳠposition will remain weak as the regional ataraps⠤ictate terms mostly for their own selfish ends and for personal power and wealth.
Survey after survey has projected peopleⳠcraving for a strong leader at the center. However, our constitutional mechanism as of now will not allow strong leaders to emerge. There is thus an urgent need for constitutional reform. National parties should be recognized with at least 25% national vote share. This will force smaller parties to regroup themselves in to a viable combination. Imagine, not long ago, Lalu, Paswan, Nitish, Sharad Yadav, Naveen Patnaik, Chautala, and Deva Gowda were all part of one single party, Janata Dal. Why does then our constitution allow fragmentation of political parties? Most of these leaders are today virtually leading family based parties. Therefore a minimum benchmark requirement of 25% of national vote for fighting national elections will bring them together once again. This will also provide ample opportunity for many of these leaders to be the head of the nation.
One of the banes of Indian politics has been that leaders stay there for life, which results in to further fragmentation of parties and monopolization of power without any objective. Apart from the leaders of the family based parties, even within the national parties, these old leaders are wrecking havoc and not allowing younger leaders to emerge. The competitive politics at the national level cannot be left to the parties themselves in the manner they are conducting themselves now. It is not easily understood why our constitution makers designed a system for recognition of parties to compete at national level with such a narrow percentage of vote.
After six decades, we today stand at a cross road. Our fellow citizens have huge expectations for future. We as a nation feel that we can match with the best in the world in the coming decades. We have 21st and 22nd century aspirations. However, our systems seriously lag behind and it does not look like that our existing systems can lead us into the future that we as a nation visualize.
There is certainly an urgent need to reform all the governance institutions. But out of all, reforming the political institution should achieve the highest priority. In no country of the world, either the judiciary or the executive has taken such radical and innovative steps to put the country in the lead. It is only the political system and the political leaders, who have taken the lead in the onward march for a nation to become a developed country. We have seen how Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore transformed a third world city state within a very short span of time into a fully developed country. Many of us draw a wrong conclusion that it was because of the small size of Singapore that it could develop at a rapid pace. Nothing can be farther from the truth. It was clearly the vision and strategy of the senior leader that the country was transformed. From another perspective, it was Lee KuanⳠbad luck that he was born in a small country. If he was born in India or China, possibly he could have achieved the same miracle which he achieved in a small island state. Many even attribute his success to an element of authoritarianism built into their political system. But the truth lies in the fact that such leaders had no more power than the great leaders like Pundit Nehru or Mrs. Indira Gandhi had in a democratic set up in India. But Indian leaders failed to draw a similar vision and strategize a plan of action to transform the underdeveloped India into the league of the first world nations.
At todayⳠcross road, choice is ours. We have a dream, but we lag behind in the political governance mechanism. First step in transformation is to evolve a two party system through a constitutional reform. National parties must conduct genuine elections for their organisations; must have fixed terms for office bearers and law should force them to organise their working like a running steam which will invite fresh blood to run the organisation. Re-organisation of our polity on the parent WestminsterⳠmodel should be the foremost objective.
In order to become a first-world country, we must behave like a first world country and must put in place the first world institutions which will transform our dreams into realities.
ᙯunger India, greying politicians⠨Hindu Business Line dated 6th February, 2009)
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2009/02/06/stories/2009020650150800.htm
|
