Political and economic uncertainties have afflicted the BJP government from the start, of course, crippling its ambitious plans to promote grass-roots development and social justice. Last week’s news, however, reinforced the perception that the government–like some of its short-lived predecessors–was simply unable to manage change at a time of profound transition in India.
The transition is taking place on four levels: (1) A highly centralized federal system is now decentralizing, and the country’s 25 states are becoming more assertive. (The ally who deserted the ruling coalition is a party from the southern state of Tamil Nadu, whose leader is a temperamental former actress named Jayalalitha Jayaram.) (2) The “license Raj”–where federal bureaucrats wielded enormous power over the economy–is crumbling in the face of economic liberalization. (3) Secularism is coming under great stress as the forces of Hindu fundamentalism and regionalism prey on the Hindu majority’s historical sensitivities about cultural identity and economic well-being. (4) India’s traditional policy of nonalignment is being dismantled as the dynamics of the cold war give way to the demands of galloping globalization.
The failure of India’s government to deal effectively with this transition points to a tough pair of questions. Are India’s political institutions being served well by the men and women who occupy positions of power? And are these institutions, copied from the British colonial rulers, even the right ones for the country? “The debasement of the political culture through the criminalization and monetization of politics has hurt India terribly,” says Ralph Buultjens, a social scientist at New York University, referring to the high numbers of convicted felons in legislative bodies and to continuing corruption in governing circles. “How do we recruit and train a new, cleaner generation of political leaders? How do we better educate citizens about the responsibilities, not just rights, of democracy?”
There isn’t much of a national dialogue in India today on any of these questions–evidence of how cynically obsessed the country’s leaders are with sheer political survival. A year ago last week, the BJP’s leaders actually proposed a review of the Constitution. Implicit in the review was the question of whether India should move to a presidential form of government, perhaps an amalgam of the U.S. and French systems that would give a nationally elected president executive powers but also enable the federal legislature to appropriately act on behalf of India’s multitudinous ethnic and cultural groups. The review went nowhere, thanks largely to the government’s decision to concentrate on nuclear blasts instead.
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Indian Constitution. A constitutional review–which wouldn’t necessarily require a constitutional convention but could be undertaken by the federal and state legislatures–would be most timely, and it could be broadened beyond legal issues. Such a review could include the following:
^ Constitutional reform. The Indian Constitution, unlike the British one, is a written document. Its drafters were heavily influenced by the U.S. Constitution, but their legatees have scarcely adhered to parliamentary and legal discipline when it comes to amending the Constitution. While the U.S. Constitution has been amended only 27 times in 210 years, the Indian Constitution has already had 78 amendments in half a century. Shouldn’t the Constitution be less of a hostage to the maneuvering of political forces pressing for convenient amendments?
^ Presidential vs. parliamentary system. Nowhere does the Indian Constitution say that there should be a Westminster-style democracy. It only advocates a “first past the post” approach in governance, which has been interpreted to mean majority rule in Parliament. Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee has said that Indians “shouldn’t shy away from discussing the presidential system of government.” Since Indians have historically responded well to strong leaders at the center–such as Jawaharlal Nehru, the country’s first prime minister–wouldn’t the institution of a powerful, and accountable, national presidency halt the trend toward political fragmentation?
^ Political education. Constitutional reform by itself isn’t going to radically transform the ailing Indian polity. Only a new generation of what Professor Buultjens calls “clean, incorruptible and committed leaders” can. That means recruiting a better cadre of people into politics at the grass roots; that also means providing more sophisticated political education for India’s billion people.
When the Constitution was being drafted, Rajendra Prasad–one of India’s founding fathers–warned that only a blend of honest political leadership and healthy public institutions would ensure the success of democracy in a cacophonic culture such as India. Now, more than two generations later, all Indians need to listen freshly to the wisdom of this truth. A constitutional review would be a timely and practical step in this direction.
