Mrs Gandhi is reported to have decided to hold elections to the Lok Sabha in December. For all we know, the report might turn out to be accurate. But so long as the Lok Sabha is not in fact dissolved and the date for the poll announced, a lot of people will continue to debate whether she will seek a fresh mandate before or soon after the previous one runs out on January 11, or whether she will try to amend the Constitution to provide for a presidential system during the present term of Parliament, or even whether she will first attempt to extend the life of the present Lower House by another year and then push through the proposed constitutional changes.
In view of the sharp, indeed abusive, response by Mr KK Tiwari and some other Congress MPs known to be close to Mr Rajiv Gandhi to Mr Vasant Sathe’s public espousal of a strange cross between a presidential and a parliamentary system, such speculation should not have arisen. In fact, it had come to be widely assumed that being rather impetuous by temperament, Mr Sathe had spoken out of turn and had, therefore, been appropriately snubbed by command from on high.
Mr Sathe’s friends in New Delhi continued to insist that he had not acted on his own initiative; they even named Mr P. V. Narasimha Rao, the Union home minister, as the prominent figure who had egged him on; and they argued, with good reason, that Mr Rao is not the kind of man who will sponsor such an important move without at least a hint from Mrs Gandhi. As it happened, despite the riposte to him by Mr Tiwari and other Congress MPs, Mr Sathe persisted in his advocacy of his favoured hybrid.
Speculation Revived
This should have served as an indication that there was more to Mr Sathe’s labours than met the eye. But by and large, the impression persisted that the Prime Minister was not involved in his misadventure. Then suddenly she came out with the statement earlier this month that she had given Mr Sathe the go-ahead signal. This was bound to revive speculation regarding her own plans, and it has.
Of course, Mrs Gandhi has also said that she does not propose to push through the proposed change of system before the elections to the Lok Sabha. And Mr Rajiv Gandhi has been quoted as having said that the country would go to the polls in 10 weeks’ time. On top of it, there are other indications which can be interpreted to suggest that the Prime Minister has settled for an early poll – that is, sometime before the end of December. But all this has not disposed of the speculation regarding her plans.
Not only Mrs Gandhi’s critics but also her supporters cite a number of factors in support of their view that she will attempt to introduce a presidential system and possibly to extend the life of the present Lok Sabha by a year. They argue that the Congress is a shambles; that it cannot hope to win a majority in an early election; that the dice has been further loaded against it by the recent developments in Andhra Pradesh; that the advantage it was supposed to have gained in the Hindi belt as a result of the army action in Punjab has been largely dissipated on account of the government’s subsequent actions, especially in Andhra Pradesh; that, indeed, the party’s position is precarious in the biggest Hindi-speaking states of UP and Bihar; and that while her charisma can assure her a comfortable victory in a presidential election, it might no longer suffice to enable her to win an election to the Lok Sabha for her party.
All this clearly boils down to saying that Mrs Gandhi would go in for a presidential system mainly because she does not expect the Congress to win the elections to the Lok Sabha. Obviously, this is not fair to her. For implicit in it is the proposition that she is interested above all in keeping herself in office. And some of even those who concede that she is too big a person to be preoccupied wholly with her own fortunes argue that, just as in June 1975 she yielded to the pressure of those who favoured the emergency, so she might succumb to those who are now urging her to go in for a presidential system. This too is unfair to her. Mrs Gandhi has a mind of her own, quite a strong one.
Credibility Problem
As the Prime Minister has said more than once, a presidential system is not incompatible with democracy. Indeed, the world’s most powerful democracy follows a presidential system. But in India the very talk of a change of system reminds a lot of people of the emergency. The connection in their minds may be unjustified. But whether one likes it or not, it exists. Therefore, if Mrs Gandhi pushes through a change of system, she will face a problem of credibility which will not be very different from the one she faced during the emergency. The effect on her popularity cannot but be adverse and it will not be limited to the intelligentsia. For the common people too have to be concerned with the question of liberty in the country. If it was ever true that the Indian people gave priority to bread over liberty, it is much less so now.
The popular mood today is very similar to the one which Gandhiji summed up when he told the British to “leave us to anarchy.” Just as the Indian people then preferred self-government to the good government the British claimed to have provided, they now prefer democracy to political stability which the advocates of the presidential system are promising. Those who do not agree with this assessment should look at the psychological reality around them more closely. Mr Nani Palkhivala is not a representative figure. But in his retreat from his advocacy of a presidential system, he reflects the popular mood.
But let us ignore this argument also for the time being and look at the proposition from a different angle. It is difficult to say what Mrs Gandhis’ answer will be if someone were to ask her to name her biggest political asset. But there can be no doubt that in the final analysis a lot of people gravitate towards her because they are repelled by the opposition parties on account of their incapacity to come together and hold together. Opposition parties are doubtless influenced by ideological considerations. The CPI, for instance, cannot tolerate the existence of the BJP. But this is not the only obstacle in the path of their coming together. There is another which is perhaps far more of an obstacle. It is not easy for so many of them to apportion constituencies among themselves. But what happens if we go in for a presidential system? Can the change not greatly facilitate their task of selecting a candidate they can pit against Mrs Gandhi, especially if, as the Prime Minister often says, their sole objective is to throw her out of power?
It is generally taken for granted that Mrs Gandhi is personally so popular that no one can possibly challenge her in a contest for presidency. This is on the face of it, a reasonable proposition. Even so, it is not a proven one. As such, it should be accepted with a measure of caution. Today, Mr NT Rama Rao can be a credible challenger if by some chance (or miracle if you like) Mr Charan Singh is prepared to swallow his ambition and pride. It is nobody’s case that Mr Rama Rao can defeat her. But he can give her a good run for her money if all opposition parties are ranged behind him, as they could well be. For, in the very act of pushing the proposed change through, Mrs Gandhi will have frightened them into treating the presidential poll as a battle for their survival.
The fears regarding Mrs Gandhi’s democratic credentials are misplaced. She is a genuine democrat, an occasional lapse, however big, notwithstanding. That became more than evident during the emergency when she behaved like a very reluctant authoritarian ruler, and it has become evident once again in Andhra Pradesh. Despite all that is said and believed about her by her opponents, she is more tolerant of criticism than several self-proclaimed democrats whom it would be invidious to identify. But the stigma of the emergency sticks to her. She would be ill-advised to revive fears associated with that sorry phase in our history as an independent country.
Useful Presence
Let us now shelve this issue as well and accept that Mrs Gandhi will be elected to the presidency. Will that necessarily ensure a parliamentary majority for her in the elections that follow? Her presence in the powerful office of President would doubtless be useful, but it cannot be decisive. For one thing, it will not help cover up the failures of Congress state governments which are the cause of the party’s weakness and apprehensions. For another, in the very process of contesting the presidential election under one banner and one programme, opposition parties will have thrown up a leader behind whom they can rally. This point is significant in view of the fact that one major reason why an alternative to the Congress has not emerged all these years has been the absence of a leader of all-India stature. Mr Jayaprakash Narayan filled the role from 1973 till the time of his death to an extent. But he was a dying man and he was not prepared to accept the active leadership of the Janata party which he had managed to create.
All this is not to argue against the presidential system as such. It is to suggest that the issue should be debated not from the short-term point of view of the Congress and Mrs Gandhi, but from that of the long-term and the larger national need. And before a meaningful debate can take place, it is necessary that a group of constitutional experts prepare a detailed framework. Without such a framework, we can have only the coffee-house type of discussion which, as we all know, are worse than useless.
The Times of India, 26 September 1984