Parliamentary Democracy

Justice Alladi Kuppuswamy (Rtd.)

One of the most important decisions which the framers of the Constitution had to take was on the type of democratic government best suited to India. It was decided that India should have a parliamentary democracy. The President like the British Monarch would be aided and advised by a council of ministers. And would be bound to follow its advice. The council of ministers would be effectively responsible to Parliament. The President was only to be the nominal head of the executive. The main reason for adopting the system was that it was tried for some time in the provinces under the Government of India Act, 1935 and had proved a success. For some time past, views have been expressed in several circles that the working of the Constitution during these years has shown that Parliamentary democracy has been a failure and we must think in terms of the presidential form of Government prevailing in U.S.A. It is interesting to note that even in U.S.A., there is a large body of opinion against the Presidential form of Government. One eminent jurist in U.S.A., compared the functioning of the Presidential form of Government when the President belongs to one party and the majority of the Congress and Senate to another party, to a motor car having two steering wheels operated by two drivers in which case no one knows in which direction the car will move. There is a saying in U. S.A., “The President proposes, the Congress disposes.”  Prof. Lunz, Professor of Political Science in Yale University states that in balance Parliamentary democracy is more conducive to a stable democracy than the Presidential system which relies heavily on the personal qualities of the President. In India we have a tendency to develop a personality cult. For instance we began to proclaim “Indira is India”. It would be extremely risky to opt for Presidential system having regard to the fact that sycophancy is the order of the day. The President would become virtually dictator.

One of the obstacles in the way of parliamentary system is the proliferation of political parties. It is well known that the essential requisite for the functioning of Parliamentary democracy is an effective party system. Sri C. Rajagopalchary said that if political opinion does not crystallise, into two finely balanced groups the resemblance of democracy may survive but real parliamentary democracy may not be there. The two-party system steadies’ movement by putting a fairly equal load on each party.

Unfortunately there is a tendency to form a number of parties today. In Parliament there are as many as 33 parties. The United Front itself has 13 parties. The result is in an election, no party has an absolute majority. This leads to coalition governments. Most often the parties who join together do not have the same ideals, and the same election manifesto. Recent events have shown how fragile a coalition government can be if it is a coalition of such parties. To add to this confusion, a peculiar precedent is developing of a party supporting the government from outside. If it suddenly withdraws its support the government is in ‘Trisanka Swarga’ and requires a President like Viswamitra to use all his skill and expertise to keep it in place. The party which promises outside support without being party of the coalition is like a seat driver of a motor car who advises the driver to apply the brakes, to watch the red light, or not to run over a pedestrian crossing the street placing the driver in a great deal of confusion.

In my view instead of heterogeneous parties getting together after election to form a coalition government which is bound to be unstable, it is better all the parties join together before election to form a front with a common election mainfesto and contest the elections.