May 18, 1998

Debate the president system; at any rate, free governance of everyday politics

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.

Pay and Play

The ordinance on power correctly targets taking subsidies for granted

It should have been done years ago. It's also the BJP-led Government's first real political test on a hard economic issue. What Union Power Minister R. Kumaramangalam proposes to do with the regulatory commissions on power is, in one stroke, cut back inefficiency, debt, and the key reason for the power sector being in such a mess and private power years behind schedule: why should any private power producer link up with loss-making state electricity boards (SEBs) without guarantees of payment? The reason why chief ministers like Kerala's E.K. Nayanar and Tamil Nadu's M. Karunanidhi are screaming murder over it is because they fear a loss of votes.

The ordinance authorises these commissions to charge realistic rates for electricity; now, first the states subsidise consumers and then prompt the Centre to pay for it. Objections have been voiced by coalition partner J. Jayalalitha and will surely be echoed by Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal who made electricity free for his farmers in 1997, then got the Centre to pay for it. This has to stop. If not, it should at least be modified so that each state can determine its politically viable level of subsidy to whomsoever it wishes, without further burdening SEBs and the Centre. Obviously, this will have to come from higher rates from users. Even farmers will not mind paying a little more, provided there's better service -- ready availability at the proper frequency. This argument can be extended to practically every area of subsidy, totalling Rs 95,000 crore by one estimate, and actually forms a key plank of the Government's agenda to, if not cut totally, then focus subsidies better. For instance, give fertiliser subsidies directly to farmers instead of fertiliser producers. The over-arching message of the power ordinance must be applied elsewhere: if you want to play politics with power, go ahead. But you must pay for it.

© Living Media India Ltd