In contrast, presidential democracy is more personality-oriented, wherein the leader of the government is directly elected by the people and then he is entrusted with the responsibility of running the government made up of people chosen by him. India is often cited as a classic example of parliamentary democracy, just as the United States follows a presidential form of democracy.
It has to be remembered that when India’s Constitution was being drafted, the Congress, the leading political party at that time, had several towering personalities who were ideally suited to lead a presidential form of government. Be it Jawaharlal Nehru or Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel or even Subhash Chandra Bose a few years before his disappearance, they all had tremendous mass following across the country and were ideal presidential candidates for any election in a presidential democracy. Yet, the Constitution-makers opted for parliamentary democracy, in the belief that the principles of collective responsibility and accountability are better enshrined and protected in a form of government where the leader is directly accountable to Parliament.
A parliamentary democracy has a natural safety valve built in the system. The supremacy of Parliament is what keeps the necessary checks and balances on a leader of the government. Remember that the leader of the government in parliamentary democracy is elected to Parliament only as a member, and it is only the members of the majority party in Parliament who decide to make him the leader, or the prime minister. Since the leader of the government in a presidential democracy is elected directly by the people, he is relatively less bound by Parliament. Indeed, the leader in such a government can in some cases veto a proposal approved by the legislature.
Strong leaders will, therefore, have a tendency to root for a presidential form of government. In a presidential democracy, campaigning and electioneering also get personalized. Instead of a battle between the values and principles that are espoused by different political parties, presidential elections obviously turn out to be battles between two personalities, their individual popularity and what policies or values they stand for. Institutions matter to some extent, but personalities hold the sway in a presidential democracy.
Indira Gandhi is believed to have entertained ambitions of changing India’s Constitution to usher in presidential democracy in lieu of parliamentary democracy. One of her key ministers, Vasant Sathe, had even floated a paper on the subject in the early 1980s. Among Congress leaders who had endorsed her idea of introducing presidential democracy in India, the name of Siddhartha Shankar Ray figured quite prominently. Ray was also among those who helped Gandhi promulgate internal emergency in the country in 1975. Even during the Emergency years between 1975 and 1977, Indira Gandhi did toy with the idea of a change in the Constitution by switching over to a presidential system of government, similar to what prevailed in France. As Kuldip Nayar wrote in Emergency Retold, her concern was that the ‘parliamentary system was too slow, at times “unproductive”, and it never gave a free hand to the person at the top’. A detailed note on the features of the proposed presidential form of government was prepared by Gandhi’s close advisers. But as an idea it had few takers in the Congress party at that time and Gandhi dropped the plan.
The general elections in 2014 and 2019 were held almost under circumstances that prevail in a presidential democracy. Narendra Modi was projected as the prime ministerial candidate for the BJP. The Congress projected Rahul Gandhi as their number one candidate. In the end, the general elections in 2014 and in 2019, in many ways, were fought on the issue of whether the voter would like to see Modi as the prime minister or Gandhi. Significantly, even without becoming a presidential democracy, India behaved like one at least as far as the general elections were concerned. This trend has not caught on in state Assembly elections as yet, although in many state Assembly elections, political parties do project their chief ministerial candidates. The idea as well as the effect are the same.
Is a disruption like India becoming a presidential democracy possible? It is likely that general elections fought in a way presidential elections are held may be increasingly favoured in the coming polls. That is also because political parties find it easy to fight the elections where personalities are projected as the eventual leaders of the government. Modi as prime minister between 2014 and 2019 showed that his governance style was more suited to a presidential form of government. But an early change in the Constitution to make India a presidential democracy is unlikely. Such an amendment will have to be endorsed by a simple majority in both houses of Parliament and a two-thirds majority of all members present and voting, in addition to half of the state assemblies approving the change in the Constitution. No national party is expected to have a simple majority in the Rajya Sabha at least till November 2020.
Simultaneous Elections for the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies
This idea too is an offshoot of strong governments and their desire to perpetuate a system where winners can take all. Combining Assembly elections with the Lok Sabha elections also helps strong leaders to gain more mileage from their electioneering and campaign work.
Until 1967, most state Assembly elections were held along with the Lok Sabha polls. It was not done by design, but it happened because state Assemblies normally ran their full tenure of five years, just as the Lok Sabha completed its five-year terms. Thus, 1952, 1957 and 1962 saw simultaneous Assembly polls and Lok Sabha elections. The tenures of neither many state Assemblies nor of the Lok Sabha followed a five-year schedule after 1962. Some of them were dissolved before the end of their term as the government fell or went in for early elections. Consequently, the election schedule for different state Assemblies and the Lok Sabha was spread out over a five-year cycle.
For the Election Commission, this sequence was helpful as the complications and the burden of holding simultaneous elections were rising with the number of electorate, the number of state Assemblies and the number of constituencies growing at a rapid pace. In theory, the Election Commission could have continued holding simultaneous elections for all state Assemblies and the Lok Sabha, but there was no need for it as the polling schedule changed. It is also true that the complexities of holding elections now in India have increased tremendously, with the introduction of verifiable paper audit trails along with the use of electronic voting machines and the security requirements for maintaining law and order and ensuring peaceful elections. The Election Commission, however, seems to be prepared to take on the challenge if such a situation arises.
For quite some time, BJP ideologues have expressed the view that the country need not be held ransom to some election or the other almost every year, bringing to a halt all policymaking processes as governments tended to go slow in taking decisions for the fear of upsetting voters or for the fear of any strictures from the Election Commission. The festival of democracy, according to such BJP thinking, needs to be celebrated only once in five years, and not every year. This is an idea whose implementation can raise many more questions on how the tenure of state Assemblies would have to be aligned with that of the Lok Sabha. What happens to Assemblies where the government falls before its tenure of five years, requiring an early election? Simultaneous elections in the whole country may sound appealing on paper, but will raise many more questions on how the Assembly polls would have to be held without either undermining the spirit of democracy or disrespecting the mandate given by voters.
Even a report was prepared under the leadership of BJP Vice-President Vinay Sahasrabuddhe, who also headed the Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR), and was submitted to Prime Minister Narendra Modi in early 2018. The report stated, ‘India and its political environment is perennially in election mode, where normally its electorate votes for around six state assemblies every year. A situation like this adversely impacts its developmental projects and programmes, which ultimately affects the country’s governance at large.’
Indeed, the desire to hold simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and state Assemblies was at its peak in early 2018. This w
as when a section of the BJP leadership was toying with the idea of advancing the general elections along with the Assembly elections in states, where the BJP was in power. At the time, five state elections were going to be held later that year. Political expediency was the name of the game. The idea was to fight anti-incumbency in at least three of the states by combining them with national elections, where Prime Minister Modi could use his political capital to the hilt. However, that proposal did not go beyond a point in 2018.
But the idea has not been given up by the BJP. This is particularly so when it fits in well with its other idea favouring a presidential style of elections. The impact of a presidential style of campaigning and elections is far greater on the electorate if it is combined with simultaneous elections. Two things stand in the way of such a disruption. One, the Election Commission has to indicate its logistical capacity to conduct simultaneous elections. Two, there will be a need for legislative changes to make sure that the Lok Sabha and the Assemblies run their full tenures.
An idea that some BJP ideologues have been advocating is to borrow the German model where no government can be defeated on the floor of the legislature unless an alternative alliance stakes claim to form a new government till the end of the specified tenure. That is one method which can ensure the continuity of simultaneous elections for both Assemblies and the Lok Sabha. How likely are simultaneous elections? Quite likely. The idea has grown roots in this country. The BJP’s election manifesto for the 2019 elections stated categorically that the party was keen on introducing simultaneous elections in the entire country. The BJP Sankalp Patra Lok Sabha 2019 stated:
We are committed to the idea of simultaneous elections for Parliament, State assemblies and local bodies to reduce expenditure, ensure efficient utilisation of government resources and security forces and for effective policy planning. We will try to build consensus on this issue with all parties.
Article 370, Article 35-A and Citizenship
Three possible legislative changes can be expected in the coming years, which could fundamentally alter the character of the Indian state. One pertains to the abrogation of Article 370, the second refers to the annulment of Article 35-A of the Constitution and the third change is the amendment of the country’s citizenship law.
Article 370 was adopted to define the relations between Jammu & Kashmir and the Centre in line with provisions under the Instrument of Accession that Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir had signed with the Indian government. Its essential objective was to protect the rights of Jammu & Kashmir to draft its own Constitution and decide for itself what powers it could extend to the Central government. A.G. Noorani, eminent lawyer and an expert on the Indian Constitution, has noted that Article 370 outlined several specific provisions for Jammu & Kashmir. These provisions ensured that the state remained exempted from the applicability of the Indian Constitution; the Centre’s legislative powers over the state were limited to three areas of defence, foreign affairs and communications; and the coverage of other Central laws to the state was subject to the concurrence of the state government as determined by the State Constituent Assembly. A key provision was that Article 370 could be abrogated or amended only by a recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of Jammu & Kashmir. However, according to expert views, after the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in 1956, changes in Article 370 could be undertaken by the state legislature with constituent powers under the J&K constitution.
Ever since the BJP has been leading the government at the Centre, the demand for abrogating Article 370 has been made with greater force. The BJP’s election manifesto, released before the 2019 general elections, revealed the party’s plans without any ambiguity. It said:
In the last five years, we have made all necessary efforts to ensure peace in Jammu & Kashmir through decisive actions and a firm policy. We are committed to overcome all obstacles that come in the way of development and provide adequate financial resources to all the regions of the state. We reiterate our position since the time of the Jan Singh to the abrogation of Article 370.
While the ‘decisive actions’ in the state are debatable and controversial, the manifesto has left no one in doubt about a BJP-led government’s intent on abrogating Article 370.
Similarly, there is a strong possibility that Article 35-A of the Indian Constitution could be removed soon by the government in the coming years. Its deletion from the Constitution would alter the way people living in different states of India could migrate to Jammu & Kashmir and acquire property there. Article 35-A was added to the Indian Constitution through a Presidential Order in 1954, as a result of which non-residents of Jammu & Kashmir were barred from holding or acquiring any immoveable property within the state. The rights of non-residents were also restricted as far as getting a job or scholarship or aid from the state government was concerned. Increasingly, the BJP has been demanding that Article 35-A should be annulled. The party is of the view that the move to restrict ownership of property in Jammu & Kashmir only to local residents has come in the way of development in the state and has indirectly sustained the separatist movement there. These are highly contentious claims. But the party’s manifesto for the 2019 general elections was quite categorical about the need for doing away with Article 35-A:
We are committed to annulling Article 35-A of the Constitution of India as the provision is discriminatory against non-permanent residents and women of Jammu & Kashmir. We believe that Article 35-A is an obstacle in the development of the state. We will take all steps to ensure a safe and peaceful environment for all residents of the state. We will make all efforts to ensure the safe return of Kashmiri Pandits and we will provide financial assistance for the resettlement of refugees from West Pakistan, Pakistan-occupied Jammu & Kashmir (POJK) and Chhamb.
Finally, a law to facilitate the acquisition of citizenship by six non-Muslim minority communities entering India as refugees before a specified date could be introduced in Parliament. On 8 January 2019, the then home minister, Rajnath Singh, introduced in the lower house of the Indian Parliament the Citizenship Amendment Bill that was aimed at facilitating the acquisition of citizenship by six non-Muslim minority communities namely Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Christians and Parsis, who came from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh and entered India before 31 December 2014. The objective of the bill was clearly to help the non-Muslim minorities in acquiring citizenship in India, but it excluded the Muslims from this facility, including those who might have moved from Bangladesh to Assam and did not find their names in the National Register of Citizenship (NRC) prepared by the state authorities in pursuance of a Supreme Court directive. Of the four million residents of Assam, who did not find their names in the first draft list of the NRC, more than half were believed to be Muslims.
Thus, the proposed Citizenship Amendment Bill would have bailed out the Hindus not figuring in the Assam NRC, but not the Muslims. The bill was passed by the Lok Sabha, but before it could be taken up by the Rajya Sabha, controversy over its intent and impact forced the government to drop it in February 2019. However, the BJP did not give up its plans to move ahead with such a bill. Its manifesto for the 2019 general elections made that very clear:
We are committed to the enactment of the Citizenship Amendment Bill for the protection of individuals of religious minority communities from neighbouring countries escaping persecution. We will make all efforts to clarify the issues to the sections of population from the Northeastern states, who have expressed apprehensions regarding the legislation. We reiterate our commitment to protect the linguistic, cultural and social identity of the people of Northeast. Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs and Christians escaping persecution from India’s neighbouring countries will be given citizenship in India.
How soon can these legislative changes be brought about? The BJP was re-elected in May 2019 to lead the government at the Centre with a majority in the Lok Sabha that was bigger than what it had got in 2014. Given the huge mandate, the Narendra Modi gover
nment could be expected to quickly move ahead on all the three legislative proposals. However, the party’s lack of majority in the Rajya Sabha could be a stumbling block, at least till such time it gains a majority in the upper house as well. All legislative changes, other than the money bills entailing financial expenditure from the exchequer, have to be cleared by the Rajya Sabha as well. And the Constitution amendment bills have to be cleared with a simple majority or with a two-thirds majority of all members present and voting in both the houses. The BJP and its alliance partners can hope to get a majority in the Rajya Sabha by November 2020, going by the schedule of elections to the upper house. Thus it is likely that such legislative changes that require the consent of the Rajya Sabha may have to wait till November 2020.
Ram Mandir
There is no doubt that the BJP continues to remain unequivocally committed to the idea of building a Ram temple in Ayodhya, on a piece of disputed land, where the ancient Babri mosque had stood till 6 December 1992 before it was pulled down by a mob of Hindu zealots. More than two decades have passed by since that cataclysmic event, but the movement to build a temple for Ram continues to provide sustenance to the BJP’s political agenda. In the first week of May 2019, a five-judge bench, led by the Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, set a timeline for the resolution of the Ram Mandir crisis by August. A Supreme Court–appointed mediation committee would indicate by that time how and in what manner representatives of Hindus and Muslims would like this dispute to be settled.
Whatever be the decision of the mediation committee, there is a strong likelihood of the BJP raising the temperature on the Ram Mandir issue. The party’s manifesto for the 2019 general elections said:
The Rise of Goliath Page 42