In an interview to the Bombay-based Current magazine, Mr. Ramakrishna Hegde has explained the main reasons for his decision to support a changeover from the present parliamentary to a presidential system of government. Mr. Hegde, it is hardly necessary to say, is not a run of the mill politician. He is one of the ablest and finest practitioners of this otherwise not too highly thought of profession in our country. As chief minister of Karnataka for four years, he has set a high standard of integrity in public life and demonstrated that it is possible to manage a party and a state on the basis of a principled adherence to certain norms. Also, Mr. Hegde is perhaps the first major opposition figure to have come out in favour of a presidential form of government based mainly on the American system. That lends even greater significance to his observations than these would have commanded normally. But, by the same token, the interview is rather disappointing.
Mr. Hegde begins his interview by recalling that he was opposed to changing the system during Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s tenure of office as Prime Minister. He gives two reasons for this opposition. First, the idea then was “to provide a cocktail of several systems” in order to centralize authority in one single individual. Secondly, at that time “the political parties in our country had not become as irrelevant” as they have since. The first is a valid proposition not only inasmuch as it reflects Mr. Hegde’s subjective assessment of Mrs. Gandhi’s politics but also inasmuch as a large section of the intelligentsia shares this assessment. But implicit in this statement is the view that the presidential system would have invested more power in Mrs. Gandhi than she possessed under the present system; or else she would not have been interested in the change. This amounts to an acknowledgement that the presidential system is more amenable to exploitation for authoritarian ends than the parliamentary one. This must in turn raise the question whether this risk has been altogether eliminated with the disappearance of Mrs. Indira Gandhi and the arrival of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi on the scene. If Mr. Hegde believes that to be the case, he has not said so. And while the personal predilection of the leader is material, it cannot be said decisive, especially if political parties have become irrelevant, as Mr. Hegde believes they have. Since the executive enjoys greater powers under a presidential system than under a parliamentary one, the risk is obvious if it is assumed that the party system has become incapable of exercising a restraining influence on the executive. Mr. Rajiv Gandhi may be well-meaning, but he cannot be above temptation.
The Karnataka chief minister’s second observation raises more questions than it can answer. What does it mean to say that political parties have become irrelevant? Irrelevant to what? To the country’s fundamental needs? If so, which needs? Who has defined them? Or irrelevant to the management of the country’s affairs? In that case, how will a change of system help overcome this problem? Or is the health of political parties relevant only in a parliamentary democracy and not in a presidential system? Mr. Hegde cannot be unaware that America is very much a two-party system even if the parties are not organised on the European model and the divide between them in Congress is not as sharp as, say, between the Conservatives and Labour in Britain.
Mr. Hegde then goes on to make an extraordinary statement. He says that he favours the presidential system because he wants greater decentralization of authority. He cannot possibly believe that a system which provides for the direct election of the chief executive, and therefore for a concentration of executive authority in him, can lead to greater devolution of authority. Indeed, if the parliamentary system in our country can throw up leaders who can function as monarchs and pass on power to their children, one can easily imagine the consequences of the presidential system. Judging by what he says subsequently, Mr. Hegde favours an amendment of the Constitution to eliminate those unitary features which were introduced in it to take care of problems created by partition. But that is an independent issue which is not linked to a change in the system of government. As it happens, however, Mr. Hedge’s argument in favour of the proposed constitutional amendment is fallacious. India has not overcome the problems of security, internal or external. If anything, these problems have become more acute and call for a stronger central authority.