> If you have a presidential system and lesser power for the states then > states have a lesser say in governance. Now, with a Parliamentary system, > where we end up with coalition governments like it's going out of fashion, > effectively regional entities have a substantial say in matters of > governance. Is this good for the country? I wouldn't dismiss coalition > governments outright. They have posed problems not on account of regionalism > but because of ideology (The Left with the Congress) or petty politics > looking for the limelight (Mamata di with the BJP). The latter hardly causes > a substantial policy deviation. The former is a vital process that only > lends further to a democracy because it gives a voice to a certain group in > society whether we agree with them or not.
I don't see the difference. In my opinion, canvassing of votes during a goverment's term should be push a piece of legislation through, not to remain in government. What we have is too much of the latter. > Yes, we could have an electoral college, but what will be its composition? > The US did not have anywhere near the ethnic variation that we did at the > time of independence, and continue to have now. Also, in the US now there is > immense diversity on account of immigration over generations, but the > idenitities forged are not regional. They are racial and ethnic. So there is > a lesser fear of rebellion against the Central authority where the demand is > for sovereign control over territory, which territory can be historically > traced to the group in question. I guess what I am saying that states in > India can make a far stronger case for Statehood on the classical parameters > of what constitutes a State than those in the US. Agree about the ethnic diversity being concentrated in regions. But the US did also have a civil war, India so far hasn't and I don't think its just because of the Centre having more power in the constitution. But if they can make a strong case for statehood, the Centre having more power does not prevent them from seeking it. > I don't understand this aversion to coalition politics. Our best years of > economic growth have had nothing but coaltion govts. Our nation was > soporific in responding to the basic needs of the citizenry and we barely > had a development vision when we had effectively single party rule. And > coalition govts have been stable. Narasimha Rao, Vajpayee and the Congress > have all lasted 5 years with a coalition govt. The issue for the center has > not been a lack of stability, rather the fact that there are more > constituencies that they have to answer to. And for me this makes for a more > vibrant democracy. Even though states have representatives in Parliament, > they would be toothless because they'd deprived of the No-Confidence Motion. > A prez would have veto which quells regionalism. Impeachment under any prez > system is a very difficult process. I'm not sure if any government can take the credit for the economic status of India today. The '91 reforms, which kickstarted the reform process were catalysed by economic conditions rather than ideology or policy committments during elections. Lack of political stability is a major concern for most investors in India and I see it being mentioned in almost every article which talks of a foreign company investing in India. A no-confidence motion prevents legislation even when the majority in Parliament want to push it through. > Why is an independent candidate a good thing? He/she doesn't have an > ideology. He/she has never had to engage in the political process in the > past except for selfish interest. He's/she's never had to have the vision > for a nation which is expected from the chosen few by political parties. > What makes him or her ready to be head of state? And why is it good? > Err.... the Presidential system will end bribery in India?? Right, And I'm > late for my threesome with Nicole Scherzinger and Scarlett Johansonn. Nordic > blonde and ethnic brunette - priceless. If the more educated sections in > India do not vote, then I don't think they will suddenly because they have > one man/woman to vote for. In fact, the numbers will be even worse against > them. They are a minority and right now there are certain constituencies > where they can elect a candidate solely on their voting power. That will be > near impossible on a national scale election where they are a woeful > minority. I think it will make them even more cynical about elections. Yes, that would be priceless but you missed the point I was trying to make. The minority, instead of voting bends the rules to its liking instead of seeking legislation because they don't see a candidate they can identify with. No it won't put an end to bribery, but presents a viable alternative. > Political parties can do this too. Looks like you're referring to an > Obama-like model which essentially needs a strong vibrant personality. We > havent had one in over a generation. The Presidential system would not > change that. Maybe such personalities have not come into politics because they have to align themselves with a party to become a serious contender to the PM post and couldn't hope to do so independently. > If an independent is aspiring to the Presidency - the de jure and de facto > head of state - he's not going to stay independent for too long. He may > appoint a team of administrators across party lines but eventually he will > be forced to forge his own identity and this will be the new reference point > for party politics. He will lose his independence after gaining the > Presidency. I don't see how this makes political parties clean up their act. The threat of an indepenant candidate wouldn't? But you do have a point on him/her not staying independent for long. > Some more random thoughts. I think as a South India, Kiran (I'm presuming > from the surname) you should be worried about the CHOM-isation of Indian > politics under a Presidential model. There are way more Choms than south > indians. Choms are north indians, by the way, for those who don't know. > Common Headache Of Mankind (CHOM). This is what every single south Indian > friend has called me since they day I arrived in law school. I've embraced > it. I don't identify with the average Malayalee any more than I identify with a "North Indian". No, this is not something that keeps me awake at night :)
