Has parliamentary democracy failed in India?

New Delhi, June 19 (ANI): It is not a question that can be answered straight away. The fact is that our founding fathers spent a lot of time studying what would be best democratic governance system for India. That they finally opted for British parliamentary democracy was perhaps also influenced by the fact that most of them had admiration for the manner in which the system had emerged in the United Kingdom.

Let us not forget that most of our leaders of that era had a British educational background. They had cleverly used the British legal and democratic system to carry on a non-violent freedom struggle.

That the original demand of Mahatma Gandhi was for a dominion status for India amply shows how close to Britain many of the Indian leaders of that time and era felt.

If the British had not reneged on their promise to grant India dominion status after World War One, when the same was given to Australia, Canada and New Zealand, the story of India may well have been different today.

The excuse given by Britain then was that India was yet not ready for self-governance. This is debatable. Perhaps, the British were keen to complete their project for building a new capital of India for which a foundation stone had been laid during the Delhi Durbar in 1911.

Yes, for an island nation that the UK is, with a unitary form of government, the system of parliamentary democracy has worked very well there. The manner in which inner party democracy is practised in that country has ensured that the three main political parties do not become hostage to dynastic politics, or be controlled by non-democratic forces. In the system as practised in the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister does emerge as a national leader. Even in a coalition, as is the case at present in Britain, the Prime Minister takes the decisions in that capacity and is not constrained by "coalition dharma"

The tragedy for the Indian democratic system in the 21st century is its failure to throw up a national leader. Since the collapse of the Indian National Congress of the freedom movement era, and more so since the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi (May 1991), the Prime Minister of India has been a hostage to coalition politics, be it the combination of NDA or the UPA.

A further aberration that perhaps was never visualised by the founding fathers is the nomination of a person not elected directly by the people to the high office of Prime Minister. Indian parliamentary democracy has used the Upper House, or the Rajya Sabha, to facilitate the nomination of a Prime Minister by a political party, or its President as has happened in the case of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

This system of a party nominating a person from the Rajya Sabha, ensures the election of a competent person to the high office. Such a person may not have the capability to fight an election to the Lok Sabha. That having been said, what emerges is the lack of a national leader who can address the people of India directly when required.

One wonders if Dr. Ambedkar, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel or Babu Rajendra Prasad ever thought that one day the Prime Minister could come from the Upper House? The Constitution clearly lays down that if a person was to be elected by the parliamentary party to lead it, and if such a person was not a member of the House, then such a person had to seek election to the Lok Sabha within six months.

Compare this with the American presidential form of democracy. That country like India has two Houses of its legislators, the Congress and the Senate. Like India, the U.S. is divided into many states, and that is why, it is United States of America. The states, like in India, have their own elected governance system. Like the system in India, the states and the federal government have defined powers. In some ways the states in the U.S. seem to have greater say in local affairs than the states in India.

Yet, the President of the United States is elected directly by the people of that country and is a tall and recognised leader of the country. He is not "first among equals" as the Prime Minister of India is under India's parliamentary democracy. Thus the President of the U.S. emerges as a voice of all the people of the U.S. and the leader of the nation - one who has been elected directly by the people.

Even as the President of the United States seems all powerful, he is still answerable to the two Houses of the U.S. Congress. It is in these two Houses that the rival parties can argue their points of view so that the President carries the larger voice of the people with himself and does not emerge as a dictator.

The time has come when all sober thinking Indians need to consider whether we can go on the way India's coalition politics and "coalition dharma" is taking us. There is a drift in the national policies. The nation has already suffered a setback in its growth. Those in the government are openly blaming "coalition dharma" for the set back and their failure to take decisions on crucial issues. There are constant brakes being applied or decisions reversed every time the Government at the Centre decides to move on.

Amending the Constitution of India to usher in a presidential form of government for the country is not going to be possible at all in the given political scenario in India today. But the time has come when we as a nation need to apply ourselves to the problem of this continuing drift.

Perhaps one solution can be that the Prime Minister of India should be directly elected by the people of India. How is that going to happen is something that needs to be debated. Clearly all of India as one would be required to vote for one of the several candidates that may emerge from various political parties. Then, at least, we as a nation, can get a leader directly elected by the people.

We cannot remain isolated in a globalised world. There is no point blaming the crisis in Europe or elsewhere for the steep drop in India's growth and the threat that it now poses to economy and living of India's people. Whatever the great economists may say, India's growth has been stalled by the failure of the government at the centre in taking crucial decisions.

India is not that much dependent upon global economies as China is that we should be blaming the European crisis for set back to Indian growth story. China today is virtually the manufacturer to the world. It is they who should be hit hard if countries in Europe and USA fail to import the goods that China makes!

Years ago Vasant Sathe, a friend of the author and a distinguished Congress leader, raised the question of considering a presidential form of government for India. He was virtually shouted down by the media and opposition parties and accused of trying to bring in a dictatorship. So as not to embarrass the then Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi, Mr. Sathe beat a retreat and kept quiet on the issue.

The time has come for India and Indians to face the reality that India's government at the centre is not able to function the way it should. This drift needs to be stopped.

We cannot see in the foreseeable future a party emerging with a majority by itself in the Parliament of India. This means India will continue to suffer the "coalition dharma" politics. It is time we debated the issue to bring about changes in our system of democracy so that it functions better for the people. The question needs to be asked: "Has parliamentary democracy failed in India?"

Attn: News Editors/News Desks: Mr. Prem Prakash is a senior journalist and Chairman of ANI Media (P) Limited.