38 Responses to “Indian democracy – Flawed or not? Prime Minister of India – Nominated or Elected?”

1. 

   Ammu  on April 15th, 2009

   I personally feel that we should learn from the USA, the fact that the president is chosen by a direct election & not be selected from a group of members of the US congress. I agree that the prime Minister should be on solid ground & this is possible only if he gets elected as the one to lead the country. A free & fair referendum should be held in our country to seek public opinion on this issue & the constitution amended to this effect. ( We have revisited the sacred document ample number of times & one more amendment that would change the perception of the Prime Minister of the country would do more good than all earlier attempts)

2. 

   Arby K  on April 15th, 2009

   Though I agree the part of nominated or elected PM is pertinent, there are more concerning issues that need to be addressed like the lack of a stable government given the consistent fractured verdicts over the last two decades, the steady strengthening of the regional parties at the cost of the national ones and the entry barrier which hinders people from becoming effective politicians without opting the side of a political party.

3. 

   h.a.shastry  on April 16th, 2009

   Shri Rajeev (not Gandhi) Chandrasekharji,
   Since you entered into politics I am reading you. (Pun intended.) For the first time I am reacting. I agree with most of your views.

   As regards your above writeup, yes, I agree, Indian democracy is flawed. We, the people are responsible for it. We, in general, nurture the fraud!

   We have got only one - but very powerful - weapon to set right our democracy and that weapon is our vote. We are either wasting it or - knowingly or unknowingly - misusing it. Illiterate mass is not properly guided but is being misguided as well as unethically lured by our politicians. Majority of the educated voters will not vote.

   Our media, which are the opinion making institutions, are either biased or they do have a hidden agenda.

   To overcome these anomalies of our democracy
   (1) We should go to the doors of our illiterate mass, make them know about the past and the present of our nation and educate them about their responsibilities while voting and
   (2) We should correct our media.
   Both these things we should do in an organized manner.

4. 

   SHANKARA  on April 16th, 2009

   I TOTALLY ENDORSE YOUR VIEWS RAJEEV.WHAT IS SADDENING THINTELLIGENT YOUTH OF THIS COUNTRY, CAN THEY EVER REACH THE TOP JOB EVEN IF THEY ARE IMMENSELY TALENTED IN THE CONGRESS PARTY?
   EVEN PEOPLE LIKE JYOTHIR ADITYA SCINDIA,SACHIN PATEL,MILIND DEORA, ETC..EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE TALENTED (THEY ALSO BELONG TO LOCAL DYNASTY,S)CAN REACH SOME LEVELS IN THE PARTY “BASED ON THE DEGREE OF SYCHOPHANCY” TO “DUMB YURAJ RAHUL”.DOES THE COUNTRY DESERVE THIS?

5. 

   Richa  on April 16th, 2009

   Rajeev,

   I could not agree more with your view. It is really a shame that the biggest democracy of the world, a country of more than a billion people should be forced upon a prime minister belonging to a certain family or their puppets. That is called monarchy. It is very well that this issue has been brought up loudly in these elections.
   However, I am terribly disappointed by Congress’ reactions and the whole leadership of Congress party in fact. What are their senior leaders doing? Why do they need to serve the family??

   The thing is that unless the process of leadership selection is not made democratic within political parties, the prime minister will never be chosen democratically.

   As for the PM being from Lok Sabha, yet again, you are fully correct. An MP from LS is more representative and in touch with people.

   Maybe you could yourself table a bill in this regard.

   Love your column.

6. 

   sachin kundu  on April 16th, 2009

   It is definitely sad that a major national party is nothing but aspirations of a particular family. While Dr Singh is an ideal candidate for his clean stature and education, it hurts the credibility of PMO when a head of state wants to meet congress party chief on a state visit. It leaves nothing to guess as to who is incharge here. I wish it was so easy for someone with exciting ideas and commitment to even enter politics let alone aspire to be prime minister.

7. 

   yashwanth  on April 16th, 2009

   Hi Rajeev,

   You’ve raised an important point here, which essentially is about the credibility of the highest office in the country.

   I feel that the Indian Democracy is not only a flawed democracy but a democracy flayed of its essence. When the PM is nominated, President is chosen and the governor of a state is placed, where and how can people’s will be exercised.

   Question is why do we still follow this federal structure ? To be the instrument to maintain the fundamental equilibrium of the people of the Country / state?to ensure that the mandates of the Constitution are respected? Is it happening ? NO!

   PM is pulled between the remote control and the 10 parties behind, Presidents sign what they are told to sign, governor follow orders … Its high time we either give more powers to the constitutional heads or do away with the federal structure.

   PMO, time and again has been chaired by one of the most undeserving candidates, most of whom do not have the mandate or the public approval. We have seen numerous occasions of this in the recent past, which again is equally undemocratic.

   I think the people of the country have a right to choose the PM, and we should change the system where the country deserves a better class of leaders.

   Today we have a scenario, where every 3rd person nurses the ambition of becoming the PM. I mean, its not wrong to dream of becoming the PM, but how can a political party representing 20 or 30 constituencies in the entire country choose a person to become the PM ? Another Flaw ?

   I have the highest respect for Dr. Singh as a person, but i cannot help but feel that PMO is a remote office for 10th Janpath.

   When a certain Feroze changed his surname to “Gandhi”, little did he know that he was changing the political landscape of the country by hijacking the legacy left behind by the true GANDHI, or Did he ??

   Something I always wonder - Would the “Gandhi” Family be the family today if it were not a Gandhi but a Pandit … or something else?? Maybe not ..

8. 

   Ashwin Mahesh  on April 17th, 2009

   Indian democracy is indeed flawed, but its most evident symptom is not in the way you refer to. Instead, what showcases the flaw is this - there is no real representation in Parliament or the state houses by elected representatives. Consider this,

   (a) According to PRS Legislative Research data obtained from Parliamanet, many reps don’t go there much.

   (b) When they do go, they don’t participate in debates very much, nor serve in any substantial standing committees on vital issues. Most bills too are passed with only the barest minimum of debate.

   (c) Most importantly, voting is ALWAYS on party-lines. I cannot remember a single instance in the last 2 decades when any MP voted against the majority opinion of his party, and managed not to be expelled for doing this. What is the point of having constituency-wise elected reps if they always have to vote according to the party leadership’s expectations? Thanks to the anti-defection law, only party leaders matter, my local MP may give the appearance of representing me but in fact there is no evidence from his record of voting in Parliament to support that. (Parliament doesn’t even keep such a record, BTW).

   This is the real flaw. In other countries we routinely read that when a Bill is proposed, there are senators or House reps who oppose it even within the ruling party, and unless they are convinced on merit, they are free to vote against the Bill as they see fit. In India, this is not so. We do not elect the judgment of an MP or MLA, only his body. Voting in legislatures is simply a formality.

   This is why we see a new trend - of MLAs from losing parties switching sides soon after the election. Being in opposition means nothing, because there is no freedom to express one’s independent views and there is no cake to be devoured. So one may as well move to the other side!

   I once raised the issue of party-line voting with a very senior judge. And his response was that ‘having been ticketed by a party, an elected member is obliged to vote as per the party’s view on all issues’. I pointed out to him that this is surely not the case anywhere else in the world, and that internal dissent is quite possible in most parties globally without fear of expulsion by the leadership. His response was that India need not be like other democracies - and indeed, it is not!

9. 

   Dr.G.Srinivasan  on April 17th, 2009

   I am reposting this which i posted 2 days before the blog in response to shoe throwing.
   Thanks for the blog
   All the people who have participated here should go back to the drawing table and see what was done and where is the state. Now the situation with the country is that one of the major politicial parties is accusing the other of communal and the other party in return calling them pseudo secular.The reason for this is the words that have been inserted into the constitution Secular,Socialist, democracy republic of all the words the supreme ideology was democracy.Power to people– to begin with the constitution was a pot pourri of all the major constitutions of the world– a westminster type of representative democracy, yet a republic (For which UK isolated us), secularism which was illdefined,Socialism which was inserted after so many years by non other than the dictator Indira Gandhi.Now let us examine the wings of this so called democracy The executive –the president was made subservient to PM by Indira Gandhi –VV Giri– signed and made president subservient to PM,The judiciary — the judicial appointments have been questioned a long time ago–, their judgments and leanings many time suggest a tilt towards the government — at the sametime saddled with a huge backlog of cases making it inefficient and ineffective– this judiciary will fast track a rape of a German girl — whereas thousands and thousands of rape cases are pending!!!Next comes the PM’s office –Manmohan Singh had accepted the post of PM on the “Request of” Sonia Gandhi an extra constitutional authority .Was it for a short period or for a whole term? Why did he not contest an election for a whole term? Now the second elections have come and still he is the PM candidate but does not contest the election!!!! This too by the AICC Chairperson!!!So the obvious loyalty of the PM lies with AICC president again an extra constitutional authority.So is the country destined to be ruled by extra constitutional people? Take the case of CEC–TN Seshan showed us how important this post is!!!They have neutralized this with two more deputy and slowly brought their own man despite a lot of charges against him dating back to his earlier days in service.SC did not take the obvious view that he could be partisan!!! So turn back and see what had happened to the constitution? All the organs were subservient — democracies wings were clipped– Jatayu killed by Ravana and Sita was abducted– Constitution killed and democracy abducted.Tomorrow anybody can walk into the PM’s office through backdoor– the front door will always remain closed.
   Do we need a second constitution ? Yes not in the form of amendments but in the form of rewriting the whole constitution and give rebirth to democracy.This time with the approval of all the people !!!We will put it for a referendum and all important matters will be put before people in the form referendum!!!!We will take back the power from Sonia gandhi who has usurped the power and from Congress party– Was Gandhi right in saying “Congress party has served its purpose of freeing india from British .It should be dismantled” Did he have the vision that sixty years after the so called freedom the freedomitself will be hijacked ? Who is Sonia to nominate a PM for lifetime ?

10. 

    karthik  on April 17th, 2009

    India is a multi cultural and multi linguistic plural society. In such society, it’s NOT very much opt and plausible to elect the head of the state by direct vote. Single party ruling has come to an end in India in such a situation how we can think of electing someone directly through popular vote? Moreover, to strengthen our democracy we have to decentralize the power, popular election method will heap more power at centre.
    Meanwhile, we can make amendment that the PM must be a member of Lok Sabha.

11. 

    __yash__  on April 17th, 2009

    Hi Rajeev,
    feels like a breath of fresh air when I come across politicians like you who posses a high degree of intellect and a broader perspective towards the needs of our nation. I agree to the fact in your last post about the PM’s nomination Vs election. I agree that when it comes to choosing for the PM, we are left with a few names which are either chosen by a family or are themselves members of that family.
    However, one thing I would like to ask. What other option do we have? We have on the other hand the BJP leader Mr. Advani, who has a die hard intention to be the PM (like many others). Someone who might be good at what he does, but has caused severe damage to the country in the past by dividing it on communal grounds. Yesterday I was going through the BJP manifesto for the ongoing elections. I don’t understand why do they still stick to the issue of Hinduism. I am a Sikh, close to Hindus. Traditionally my family would prefer a pro Hindu government as we share same roots. And provided, the damage the Congress led 1984 riots caused both my community as well my family individually, I should never be voting in Congress’ favor.
    Still I would prefer casting a vote for the Congress party. And the sole reason for doing it that i keep my Country before of my community as well as my family, while taking any decisions. I prefer a pro- development government. And by choosing Congress, I think I do the same.
    And when I go and vote for Congress, rest assured I am not voting for a family. Neither I am voting for a sikh PM. What I am voting for is a stable and unbiased government. The current PM Dr. Manmohan Singh is not a politician. He’s not even from LS. Technically speaking he’s not a people’s man. But with reference to the economic reforms of 1991 and 1993, he has actually changed the life of every common man in India. His reforms in the economic and foreign policies, have changed the face of this nation. We have achieved far beyond in the last 15 years, than we achieved in the last 45 years. He’s the person whom I give all the credit for bringing India to a global platform. And that’s whom I’m voting for this time.
    And not just Dr. Manmohan Singh. The entire cabinet under his ministry. For example just see out Aviation Minister Mr. Prafful Patel. He lost from his constituency as a LS candidate not once but twice. Finally, got through a RS seat and became the aviation minister. So technically speaking, even he’s not a people’s man. But the kind of reforms he has led in the civil aviation industry have long been sought. Moreover, far better than Mr. Shahnawaz Hussein, who was just another plastic face minister in the BJP to justify it as a secular party and attract some minority confidence. I knwo this is just an example. But what can I say sir…. I’m lead by examples.
    Talking more about the cabinet, we have other people from the LS as well. In fact, one of the most corrupted leader of LS, and infamous for his scams in the past, Mr. Lalu Yadav has proved himself to be useful under the current PM’s supervision.
    Another example could be taken of our former finance minister and the current home minister Mr. P. Chidambaram. At a time when powerhouses like US, UK and other EU nations are striving hard with the current melt down, up to an extent to revising their policies, India stands tall by being least hit amongst them. And that too when our biggest business generators are the US and the EU.
    All these are still examples and many more to follow. But sir as i quoted above…. I FOLLOW EXAMPLES.
    So finally I still have two options. One to cast my vote in favor of a communal party, who just plays cheap politics by the famous ‘Divide and Rule’ policy. And on the other hand, a not that cheap politics playing party, which at least puts development on its agenda and has a team of promising leaders under its kitty.

    I don’t know whether this comment would ever be read by you. But just in case you feel like reading it, do reply at least.
    I’m not here to challenge you on what you believe in. Just to know where is that I’m wrong in my understanding.

    Yashvinder Singh

12. 

    Dr.G.Srinivasan  on April 17th, 2009

    We need a Nani palkhivala to defend the citizens rights.I was just going through what he would have done.Immediately filed a case against the PM and the government and congress aprty for underminig the constitution!!!
    Atleast I miss one man who could take on these people single handedly.Some of the excerpts:-
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanabhoy_Palkhivala
    In 1975, shortly after the imposition of the Indian Emergency, a bench of 5 judges was hastily assembled, and presided over by Chief Justice A.N. Ray to determine the degree to which amendments installed by the government of Indira Gandhi were restricted by the Basic Structure theory. On November 10 and 11, the team of civil libertarian barristers - led by Palkhivala - continuously argued against the Union government’s application for reconsideration of the Kesavananda decision. Some of the judges accepted his argument on the very first day, the others on the next; by the end of the second day, the Chief Justice was reduced to a minority of one. On the morning of November 12, Chief Justice Ray tersely pronounced that the bench was dissolved, and the judges rose. In effect, the doctrine was applied to the 39th Amendment of 1975, which attempted, among other provisions, to pass legislative judgment over the 1971 election of Indira Gandhi.
    Not only did Nani Palkhivala interpret the constitution as a message of intent, he also saw it as a social mandate with a moral dimension. As he later stated in the Privy Purse case [Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia vs Union of India, (1971) 1 SCC 85]: “The survival of our democracy and the unity and integrity of the nation depend upon the realisation that constitutional morality is no less essential than constitutional legality. Dharma (righteousness; sense of public duty or virtue) lives in the hearts of public men; when it dies there, no Constitution, no law, no amendment, can save it.”
    It was aptly said that in those days that there were two Budget speeches, one by the Finance Minister and the other by Nani Palkhivala, and Palkhivala’s speech was undoubtedly the more popular and sought after.”[1]
    In 1963, Palkhivala was offered a seat on the Supreme Court, but declined
    In 1968, he was offered the position of Attorney-General by Govinda Menon, then the Law Minister in the Congress Government. Palkhivala recounts in his book We the Nation:[citation needed] “After a great deal of hesitation I agreed. When I was in Delhi I conveyed my acceptance to him, and he told me that the announcement would be made the next day. I was happy that the agonising hours of indecision were over. Sound sleep is one of the blessings I have always enjoyed. That night I went to bed and looked forward to my usual quota of deep slumber. But suddenly and inexplicably, I became wide awake at three o’clock in the morning with the clear conviction, floating like a hook through my consciousness, that my decision was erroneous and that I should reverse it before it was too late. Early in the morning I profusely apologised to the Law Minister for changing my mind. In the years immediately following, it was my privilege to argue on behalf of the citizen, under the same Congress Government and against the government, the major cases which have shaped and moulded
    in the last years of his life, Nani Palkhivala was severely affected by Alzheimer’s disease. According to Attorney-General Soli J. Sorabjee, who had known him for many years, “it was painful to see that a person so eloquent and articulate unable to speak or recognize persons except occasionally in a momentary flash.”

13. 

    bluespriite  on April 17th, 2009

    I have two comments.. to two particular statements you have made in your post:

    1. ..simply make a Lok Sabha MP much more aware of the real problems facing real people.

    I think being in the Lok Sabha may make an MP aware but not necessarily more qualified or better in any way to solve those problems.. as our MPs have proved in the last 5 decades at least. Of course they also do that for a reason..but net net, the person whose problem they are familiar with doesn’t really gain,

    2. The issue of a nominated Prime Minister versus an Popularly elected Prime Minister seems to be developing into an election issue.

    The bigger crux seems to be people are voting for ideologies, not individuals so a nominated PM is not a bad idea as long as that ideology has won fair and square, na?

    I say this because me, living in a city and seeing my contemporaries and peers and friends getting informed enough to voted, face this dilemma. Person or ideology is the question and usually ideology wins as it seems less susceptible.

    Sorry to hog so much comment space.

14. 

    Vaibhav Raizada  on April 17th, 2009

    Is nominated person is a bigger issue than a able person. A politician like Mayawati or Amar singh is more dangerous than highly qualified person like Manmohan Singh. At the end what matters, is growth of country, rather than that person is nominated by family or something. Here, if we take two prime candidates for PM post, i want to know from people, who is more reliable? Mr Advani, who wants PM post anyhow, with whatever possible manipulations, with dented past or a person away from dirty politics, away from flamoyance etc. I accept, Dr. Singh lacks authoritativeness, but one weakness can not overshadowed all other good things. Think and move above than dirty politics.

15. 

    Abraham  on April 17th, 2009

    I agree to some of your views… but your view of “Lok Sabha MP is constitutionally and due to his popularly elected background, a far more credible and aware representative of the people” I disagree with you…

    what about those criminals in Lok Sabha, can we make them our PM just because they are elected by “people”…

    I think Rajya Sabha has less number of criminals… and more educated people…

    And if you think that ours is a‘flawed democracy’ then why u became an MP?… if u don’t believe in something you should not be a part of it…

    So resign first and call it a flawed democracy…

16. 

    Pranav Bhasin  on April 17th, 2009

    Dear Rajiv,

    I do agree with your point of view and strongly feel that we need to start voting for our leaders, not parties.

    The part that saddens me the most about the current system is that voting for parties inadvertently results in a coalition government, which to me is an even bigger threat than a nominated PM.

    Regards,
    Pranav

17. 

    Geeta  on April 17th, 2009

    Dear Mr Chandrasekhar

    I agree that the fact that one family seems to have the power to appoint the PM and thereby steer the government of the country does not reflect at all well on our democracy.

    This is because we have no democracy in our
    political parties - they are all ruled by either dynastic politics or autocrats (of one kind or another).

    For our democracy to mature, we need to introduce some reforms:

    1. Nominees of all political parties must be democratically elected from within their respective parties.

    2. Number of parties fighting elections must be limited to 2 or 3 - make it mandatory for all parties having similar agendas/manifestos to unite and put forward their candidates together. Failing which they will not be permitted to contest elections (except perhaps as independants)

    3. Ensure proportional representation - whereby only candidates voted by a majority of votes are allowed to form the government.

    I wonder whether you agree and whether you could introduce these or similar reforms in Parliament?

    Meanwhile, please do keep up your good work. It is heartening to see people like you in Parliament who bave our country’s interests at heart.

    Thank you for giving us your time and effort.

18. 

    Shashidhar Bhat  on April 17th, 2009

    Once mahatma gandhi praposed to wind up the congress party after freedom struggle. but he was the person who handed over the party to Neharu. Gandhi neharu relation itself is full of paradox. Gandhi man of simplicity had close relation with neharu, who had defferant approach, lifestyale and beliefs. Gandhi wrote first sentence of dynastic rule by nominating neharu for the post of prime minister.then indian politics became the property of one family and sycopants started to rule. when other then person from neharu family became prime minister, they have no other go except become the implementing agents of powerfull family. Prime minister manamohan singh known for his integrity, never shown his individuality. that is the fate of this great country.

19. 

    Georgie  on April 17th, 2009

    we seem to be giving a lot of undue attention to the gandhi family..and perhaps it is this very attention that has turned the gandhi family into what they are in Indian politics today.lets get this straight ..there are many that would swear by the sins and faults of the g family..but i am forced to believe that the indian nation would not elect members of this family if they were as evil ,manipulative and power hungry as many would say.admit it ..there must be something they are doing right..
    The word is stability..ok maybe the gandhis haven’t turned India into eutopia, but they provide a sense of security not only to the minority communitys of india but to the peace loving Hindu’s of this nation..

    Manmohan Singh’s electoral qualifications are questionable..however it is this same power-hungry family that decided to put one of the most academically qualified individual this nation has ever had as its prime minister.

    we are a flawed democracy yes ..because this democracy would never vote a person like Manmohan Singh into the lok sabha.Hopefully this time round qualified individuals such as Sashi Tharoor will pass the flaws of this democracy

20. 

    Aneena.  on April 17th, 2009

    Indian democracy is “Botched”. This is the fact that almost every Indian would knowingly or unknowingly agree to.
    Well, I entirely agree to your suggestion of going the United States way. Its time for us to substantiate the political system of our country. Gandhis ( A family) are not enough to govern a country with billions of people. The great unwashed needs to arouse and change the system being in the system.
    Why don’t we get a chance to choose the “One” whom we think has the capability of being regnant?
    Why a Party? Why not an Individual? Why only Congress, BJP, Left or others? Why not you, me or perhaps someone influential? Why people who are literate for the sake of being one? Why not people who can actualize the value of education?
    Questions are being raised by every member of the society though in phenomenon they remain unanswered.
    Duping masses is what our politicians term democracy, I guess.

21. 

    nalini ranjan  on April 17th, 2009

    Democracy as instrument in selecting government has never lost it ideals in India. Problem with India is lack of moral ambitions in politics.Mass movement with clear understanding of its implication on society together with leaders with clean image has not happened in recent past. The type of movement I am talking has not taken place since J.P. movement which gave birth to many non-Congress leaders of present time.
    Instead we had Godhra and Babri Masjid case. In my small life time of 22 years I have not witnessed any leader whose principles connect to me, and its not only my case,its with every young person of our country. Youth of India is looking for a change but they don’t have leaders who have appeal and cause to drive educated youth to dive in active politics.
    When educated youth will responsibly articulate the idea of their role in future of the society then those indicators will also change. India needs “Change we can” leader to eliminate all kind of problems and have more intellectual people in active politics.

22. 

    nalini ranjan  on April 17th, 2009

    I want to know the report name and the economist name so that i can study the report properly and know what the indicators are.

23. 

    avi  on April 18th, 2009

    Many people have the misconception that it was Congress/MMS/Narashima Rao, who opened up the indian economy in 1991 and then india started growing. But the fact is the Congress govt has looted india to such an extent that India lost all its credibily in the world and became bankrupt. It was IMF who forced india to open up the economy and bailed it out.

    Has anybody thought why the economy was not opened in 1981/1971/1961…?

24. 

    TJ  on April 18th, 2009

    For the losers a the prevailing democracy is always “flawed”. We have had non-”nehru family” governments for many years over many governments and in many states of our young nation. Nehru family has been thrown out many a time in elections. So it appears only when they win the losers gripe and whine about “flawed democracy”.In this era of coalitions we should ask ourselves why the regional parties prefer to accept the Congress rather than the BJP for govt formation. I am willing to bet that the scenario will be no different this election. And once that happens why do they accept a person like Manmohan Singh ? After a billion votes and several months of campaigning to call the nett end result a “flawed democracy”:; such a label is an insult to the voters who put them in power. We get the leaders and government that we deserve after all of us have cast our votes. The election of Obama as President ( for instance) appeared to my losing Republican friends as the “flawed democracy” of the US. I think the term is an oxymoron at best.
    Coming to Manmohan Singh, I think we have to look at his achievements. To me the Indo US Nuclear deal, the way he saw it through, with both political acumen and sheer force of will and tackling the demons in his own party, spoke volumes of his self-effacing leadership style and strength of resolve. The other was the farm loans waiver bringing relief to millions of farmers and dramatically lowering the suicide rate. And as an aside to an earlier post, I personally do not see how Byregowda is any less of a candidate than Ananth Kumar to represent my constituency of Bangalore South. And please anyone who has not cast his/her vote this time has no right to complain about “our roads….et al”

25. 

    Taranfx  on April 18th, 2009

    nice post. India needs a good leader now, definately. More than ever

    http://apnahomepage.in/blog
    The Indian blog: Discussing Indian Politics, Technology, Economy, and socialism

26. 

    Mukund  on April 18th, 2009

    I disagree with Rajiv Chandrashekhar. There is nothing flawed in Dr. Manmohan Singh becoming the Prime Minister, although he is not a Lok Sabha member.
    In a parliamentary system, the majority party elects a leader who has to become a member of either of the Houses within six months. So what’s wrong with Dr. Singh being the PM? He is Congress and UPA’s leader and member of the Upper House. Its just a different model. Sonia Gandhi runs the party and its coalition and Dr. Singh runs the government.
    On Nehru Gandhi family. They have been elected by the people of India. There have been instances where they have been shown the door as well. It has been a fair game. Mind you, this has not been the case in many of the African and Asian nations which got independence along with India.

27. 

    ashok kumar dubey  on April 19th, 2009

    I agree to the views as expressed by Richa who wrote on Apr 16. Our PM must be elected through general election being conducted now and NOT should be nominated from Rajya sabha as PM now is. No doubt Dr Manmohan singh is very learned and honest man. But he can not act indepedently, and the director is from Indira Gandhi family who had been proved as dictator, our countrymen should not forget the Emergency period. In a democracy like our country this a curse for the people of India who is being dominated by a Italian lady, who do not understand India.Now as congress party has not left any option rather than projecting Dr Manmohan sigh as PM people should think to bring congress in POWER.

28. 

    aruna Arora  on April 20th, 2009

    I have read with interest all comments posted regarding Dr. Man Mohan Singh on Rajeev s web.Persoanally I feel that it is important for the contry to have a good man at the helm , rather than people with flawed views about Dharma which they call religion. What good is religion when the the basic good of people is not kept in mind and we go demolisihing religous places and claim to make a temple of our own.Is that the only agenda for the nation. I am sorry, but I would go in for P.M. who can take the nation forward.
    A.Arora Noida

29. 

    prashanth b.n.  on April 20th, 2009

    The reason Man Mohan Singh should not have become PM is actually different in my view. The most sacred thing in a democracy is the vote a citizen has. Man Mohan Singh did not bother to cast his vote and yet became the Prime Minister of this country. Either way you look at it, it is either the biggest joke on democracy or the biggest criminal act by the Congress. My 2 c

    Preashanth

30. 

    ra saks  on April 20th, 2009

    Dear Mr Chandrashekhar,
    I have read your blog with interest but find the issues raised presumably for discussion too superficial -
    The issues to debate to my mind after 60 years of independence are
    1) How many political parties do we need ?
    2) Is there any use of the “upper house” (of which you are a member )at the Centre or the states
    3) What is the need of the Govervors at the state?
    4) Should we have a two tier electoral process - perhaps then have a debate amongst the contenders in the final round.

    As far as the PM being from the Lok Sabha and a debate between Dr Singh and Mr LK Adavani are concerned they can only be addressed after the four points referred above have been settled through a referandum. This is essential to decide who should debate Dr Singh - Advani, Karat , Pawar , Lalu or Mayawati etc.

31. 

    Rajeev  on April 20th, 2009

    ive raised issues that i observe around these elections…its possible that u find those superficial..! ive no problems with that! but let me try and give u my views on the issues/questions u raised..

    a. number of political parties: however much we dislike the proliferation of parties, unfortunately there cant be a ban on parties. there can be at best a classification (as the election commission does today) of parties into regional and national..but as long parties attract groups of people (on whatever basis), parties will be formed. i see no reversal to this trend as long as the concept of india keeps getting diluted and broken into regions, castes, religions - parties will address these smaller groups.
    b. i agree that the upper house (or the council of states) needs a review of its role in constitution..it currently serves as another lok sabha with the same issues being debated by another group of indirectly elected MPs. there needs to be a debate on the role of the Rajya Sabha and role of the Rajya Sabha MP as being different and distinct from the Lok Sabha MP.
    c. Governors are required in a federal constitution - as the representative of the National government and to oversee the functioning of the regional elected government. I would not be in favour of diluting the governors, except for cases like article 370 (recommending dissolution of assembly or government) which is often misused and Governors become tools for the central government. I would also think the current pomp and ceremony of the Governors office (designed at the time of the British) be dispensed with and the Governors office becomes more functional and reduced costs.
    4. The current first past the post election system is cleared flawed in a multi party situation as we have. it works well in UK where it was designed because of its 2 party system (3 if u include the liberal democrats). In our case when elections have four or five candidates, most of the winning candidates do so with only 30-35% of the popular vote..so in effect the representative of the people doesnt represent the majority of the people. I completely agree with you that this system today is not giving us true representative democracy and needs fixing.!

    Having said this, the point to remember is that most of these reforms need constitutional amendments! Constitutional reforms is an issue that requires the parties to support it that are going to be effected by it and potentially disadvantaged politically by it.! The only way for such political reform is to get the mass of public opinion behind this - if you notice not one of the parties have suggested any of these constitutional amendments or reforms in their manifestoes - unfortunate but reality! stay involved ! thanks for ur writing in!

32. 

    Rajeev  on April 20th, 2009

    also please read my views on broader issues that face our country at http://www.tehelka.com/story_main41.asp?filename=Rajeev_Chandrasekhar.asp. !

33. 

    Valerian  on April 20th, 2009

    Mr. Manmohan Singh was not a nominated PM. He is a Rajya Sabha member who became a PM by election as a leader of the Congress Parliamentary Party consisting of elected members of the Parliament from that party. This provision is there in the Constitution of India. Hence it is wrong to say that Indian Democracy is flawed. If at all one has test the constitutionality of this procedure one has to question it in the Supreme Court. It cannot questioned in the media or in any electoral debate.

34. 

    Dr.G.Srinivasan  on April 20th, 2009

    So far as preserving a constitution and the intentions I think the country has to have a person like this one man who stood against congress atrocities on the constitution>People read this and enjoy
    http://www.vohuman.org/Article/Nani%20Ardeshir%20Palkhivala.htm

35. 

    shubha  on April 22nd, 2009

    i do agree with your points.Now i strongly feel we have to,we need to vote to change this ‘Flawed Democracy’

36. 

    Rajeev  on April 23rd, 2009

    Good to hear your determination to vote! thanks!

37. 

    Prashant  on April 23rd, 2009

    I believe its time to add a ” union” election to the Lok Sabha elections. The ministers, PM etc are for the nation and not for their own constituencies. What I a suggesting is in addition to the Lok Sabha elections, we should have one more election (at the same time) of the PM and his cabinet. Each PM candidate should have his cabinet named so that minister seats can go to deserving people instead of being traded for survival. This will remove the oppurtunity for horse trading at MP level.

38. 

    DPKarkara  on April 25th, 2009

    Indian democracy is flawed and our Constitution due for change is clear from the following facts.
    1. The Head of State is the nominee of the political party which runs the Government. Therefore the Executive has unbridled powers.
    2. The Judiciary which can work as the wacthdog also becomes helpless because the legislature can also be lead by the Executive to validate actions which the Judiciary strikes down. We have seen countless cases happening.
    3. The Executive has been given unchecked authority to make highest constitutional appointments viz; Governors, Judges, Ambassodars, Election Commissioners , Auditor General, CEC and others. The Constitution is flawed because it does not require the merits of the appointees debated in the legislature and ratification. In fact these appointments should require ratification in the RAjya Sabha by not less than two/third majority.
    4. The Government can enter into all kinds of contracts, agreements and MOU’s within the country and with the foreign Governments and agencies without these being debated properly and ratification by the legilature. The dust arises after these are signed and then ‘Bofors’ and ‘Scorpeans’ happen and vitiate the atmosphere.
    %. It is the working of such a flawed Constitution that we today have a nominated PM who has not won even one popular election.
    Rajiv Ji you have started a worthy debate to cleanse our democratic system of its failures. Thanks.

Leave a Reply