A time for divorce

(This short post is prompted by Arun Shourie's latest book : The Parliamentary System )

Irrelevant Diatribe

Sometimes you have to marvel at the misguided priority of Indian polity. We have "secularism" as cornerstone of national discourse, despite the fact that Indic tradition is devoid of rule based on clerical or theological authority (which is what secularism is essentially concerned with). But the issue which is relevant, remains for most part ignored, I am talking about separation (and independence) of legislature and executive, a crucial issue, one which has so far stymied Indian progress.

Relevant Argument

I don't think at this juncture there can be any two opinions about how a fractured polity hijacked by vested interest groups is causing steady unravelling of the authority and what is much more worse unceasing pandering to demands of these groups and handling out doles are undermining governance.

In my opinion polity can be repaired and restored to its original aim of felicitating conversation for nation building by making legislature and executive independent.
An executive which doesn't depend on fractured legislature can take long term policy views. At the same time legislature, in absence of doles that comes with a dependant executive, will be cleansed of vested interests, and hence can return to its task of legislation.

While deliberating over constitution, the constituent assembly discussed presidential system but opted for British model, probably because it was familiar.
However parliamentary system was intended for a small and uniform electorate. In colonial India the legislature was for most part symbolic with real power vested with viceroys and British government.

With the benefit of hindsight, one can say that Westminster model was never going to succeed in India. We can have a theoretical understanding of the failure by taking into account power dynamics of political institutions.
For a person wising to control executive, there are two scenarios, one is to control the legislature which was the case with Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. Another is to appease the disparate factions which electorate as diverse as India will throw up. This is the present scenario with coalitions.
So we see instead of preventing excess, this system actually promotes excess.

It is only by looking at the harm done to India, one can appreciate the practical importance behind separation of power and mutual independence of different branches of state.

A word of caution is appropriate here. The framework of political institutions is important, because it determines the way power is owned and hence exercised. It follows that this framework determines the incentive towards actions which are collective or social in nature.
At a subtle level it also signals or provides feed back to the direction along which the individuals must align his moral view.

Ultimately however success of polity is dependant on the moral character of people.
For example I think that the disaster that was perpetrated by dimwitted policies of Nehru and his daughter couldn't be prevented as most likely they would have continued to control the legislature, however I do believe that due to fundamentally independent nature the deliberative character of legislature would have been retained which would have worked as bulwark against their tyranny.

As Bjarne Stroustrup said, "While C++ can prevent mistakes, it can not prevent frauds."