Having belatedly started reading Nobel Economics Laureate Paul Krugman's blog (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/), I see that his primary obsession these days is with the discussion on expansionary austerity, i.e. with the Republicans forcing Obama to reduce the deficit, with the argument that it increases growth in the economy. This is an economic debate, that I is beyond the scope of my point here. The idea that caught my attention was that, as Krugman puts it, Republicans have forced Obama to behave like right-winger (for those who don't know, the Republicans are considered the right, and Obama and his Democrats the left-leaning, thought not out-and-out socialists).Can we imagine such a situation in India? Does the opposition in India really have the muscle to force the Government to do something? In recent times, we can talk about the resignation of ministers, and think further back and we can talk of the JP movement against Indira Gandhi. However, these movements cannot be really called 'opposition-led movements', since the entire nation, or much of it at the very least, was agitating.
The primary flaw as I see in Indian democracy is the close interlinking between the Executive and the Legislature. The executive by very definition has a simple majority in the legislature. Of course, there is the Rajya Sabha which does not show such a relationship by definition, but it is still quite unlikely that the ruling party is much behind the half-way mark here. Hence, the Government can pass any law that it wishes, especially those that do not tinker with the Constitution.
Thus, the only check on the executive has been the judiciary, but even here an attempt has been made by the executive to protect controversial legislation (such as Tamil Nadu's reservation act) in the ninth schedule to protect it from judicial scrutiny. The judiciary, of course, has sought scrutiny over these by means the 'basic structure of the constitution' argument, but then the 'basic structure' would obviously be very narrow in scope -and hence much of the ninth schedule acts escape judicial review.
This post is not a call for change, I must clarify. India is already too far in its experiment of democracy to make such a drastic change at this moment. This post is merely a commentary - so that the next time we complain about the Government being unreceptive, we know where to look.
The concept of your blog is good.. just discovered it.. Good job.. :)
ReplyDeleteNow to the article..
Indian constitution i have to say one of the best written documents of all times. And the constitutional provisions try their best to keep the legislature executive and judiciary focussed on the welfare of the people in all possible ways.
The interlink between the executive and judiciary you talk about, is a conclusion you have come to too fast i'd say. For any ordinary law to be passed in the country, has to go through 3 intensive rounds in each house where each point each line is discussed and amendments are suggested and changes are made. To become a law the bill has to be passed by the majority in both the houses, if needed along with a joint sitting!
So far so good. But concluding that the party in power can easily sway the bills it wants to and pass the laws it wants to, without much hassle is like i said jumping to conclusions too fast. Unlike usa, india had a multiparty system, so many parties, so many views, and to think its easy to pass a bill by one party's influence on the rest is impossible. Its easier said than done. The opposition has a major role to play. All parties' consensus is a must to pass a bill.
Consider the women's reservation bill. BJP feels that such an historic win should not be passed during the time of UPA-II. Who knows they may succeed in stopping the government from passing the bill like how republicans claim to have forced obama. Lokpal bill, if other parties were really sure of their transparency and cleanliness do you not think, that upa-II or congress would easily have been forced into passing the lokpal? Opposition has a lot of say and so does each and every MP.
Its a different matter that there are not many issues the opposition is passionate about which go against the current government in power.
And about judicial review. The power it already holds is tremendous. And the 'basic structure argument' by the SC is not even written on paper anywhere and a new basic structure comes out as and when the SC feels like when it passes various judgements! Already our judiciary is highly powerful and posses the right to declare anything as the basic structure of the constitution and on that basis declare a law unconstitutional and void. After all its the final interpreter of the constitution.
The problem doesnt lie in opposition or the SC not having the power but their constant denial and lack of incentives in using that power judiciously.
(1) Is it really that bills are discussed in the legislatures? There are too many times that bills are passed by voice votes. Legislation such as the women's reservation bill, which require a constitutional amendment, are the ones that get discussed, or ones such as the Nuclear Liability Bill and the Land Acquisition Bill, in which some of the Government's own constituents have expressed disagreements?
ReplyDelete(2) It is true that the judiciary is still there. Just that the basic idea is that some sort of checks for the executive should be within the legislative process, and that is really where I see it lacking.
(3) It isn't that the Republicans are guided by some 'greater good' intentions. They're just trying to corner Obama, and they have the power too. The problem is that the BJP can't 'corner' the Government, except use the media to build public opinion. The opposition party should have some greater legislative powers is what I'm arguing.