streamline political parties in India to 2 or 3 max to quicken decision making

Discussion in 'Politics & Society' started by roma, Aug 17, 2009.

  1. roma

    roma NRI in Europe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,248
    Likes Received:
    1,862
    i observed on indian tv via the web the process of Pm singh putting his head on the chopping block to get the india usa deal going and all the "tom dick and harry " political parties going at his throat ....and also in the recent general election there were all sort of "all and sundry " parties .... even one bhai started a "recession party " to cater to those who suffered job losses and the like at that time ...... all this compared to a one party system in china , the chinese might be surprised at the decision making process in india especially in the context of the need for swift decision making for our military. Well im not asking india to forgoe democracy , merely to streamline the process and so one top down way to do that is limit the number of parties . Afterall in the usa it boils down to just two with ross perot's party having given way after a while and in the uk it is basically just three.
    Alternatively some may argue that after taking into account the coalitions among the indian parties , it does boil down to just 3 merged part-groupings. we may then ask are those real coalitions or just convenience because some who were in coalition before the last election are now at each others throats being no longer in coalition. Whew! indian poilitics is really complicated to an "outside" observer like me.
    Second part of the question is ; Is a more Presidential style form of government better from the indian military point of view i.e quicker decision making and accountability to one man ( or Woman ).
    your comments and debate please.
     
  2.  
  3. Antimony

    Antimony Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    10
    Lesser number of political parties

    This, apart from reducing options available to people, will also reduce points of views/ principles. Please note that while there are a lesser number of politial parties in the US today, it was not always so. their politics have matured over the years. Also note that US legislators are free to lend their support to either government or treasury benches. Each senator typically may have vote with the other party. In the Indian parliamentary syste, that would mean breaking of party lines and possible dismissal. China's one party system is no solution at all. Please note that many Americans now claim that their politics is too polarised and have been asking for other vialble alternatives

    President vs. Prime Minister

    The question of President vs. PM is not one of efficiency in military response. The PM is the de facto leader whn it comes to executive decisions anyway. The problem is that unlike the US, the Executive and the Legislative offices may/ are occupied byb the same parties/ people. This means that there is less of checks and balances in the system. The opposite view is that is that if the President and the Legislature belong to different political parties, legislative work can come to a standstill. This happened during Clinton's administration, when the US Congress was largely occupied by the Republicans
     
  4. Antimony

    Antimony Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    10
    Patience, my friend.

    How will they learn if they do not ask? :)
    I am sure we were greenhorns once
     
  5. sky

    sky Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    25
    No

    our for fathers shed blood sweat and tears for a free india,1.16 billion indians need to feel connected to what is happening .i live in england and we only have 2 real parties that can form a govenment,trust me its not healthy.we went to war in iraq on a big fat lie because we wanted to keep on side with america.that would not happen in india as the coalation parties would not stand for it.pr is n0t perfect but its fair,in a coutry of so much poverty i think its great every vote counts.and gives power to the poor
     
  6. Flint

    Flint Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,583
    Likes Received:
    25
    In my opinion, a much more effective reform would be a Presidential form of government.
     
  7. ahmedsid

    ahmedsid Top Gun Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,958
    Likes Received:
    243
    I disagree flint, I feel our current system even though slow and nerve cracking at times, is best suitable in the long run. I used to be an advocate of the Presidential System, but I feel in a country like India with much diverse opinions, the current system is best.
     
  8. Flint

    Flint Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,583
    Likes Received:
    25
    I disagree as well. It doesn't matter how many diverse opinions you have. Ultimately, the head of state has to make the final decision.

    Today, we have reached a point where its impossible for the head of state to make ANY decision of consequence.

    A President will have the freedom to steer the country in a certain direction, without being dragged down by vested interests.

     
  9. ahmedsid

    ahmedsid Top Gun Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,958
    Likes Received:
    243
    Again I disagree :) !!! Remember the Nuke Deal? It had much opposition, yet the PM mustered the will since he thought it was good for the nation and got it through! It was a tough moment right? I feel Presidential or Parliamentary, all that matters is the will to take the issue head on.
     
  10. roma

    roma NRI in Europe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,248
    Likes Received:
    1,862
    tend to feel that in a presidential system you can have all options being discused or debated in parliament and a small group eg closed door parliamentary committee taking decisions and either president has final say or higher weighting than the members of the committee in the ensuing vote.
    present system in india seems to have to much going back and forth eg up to today they still havent done with the bofors issue and its going 20 years ....time to drop the matter and push ahead ?
     
  11. mattster

    mattster Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    518
    Location:
    California
    India is hobbled by incompetent lower-level state level politicians

    The main problem with the Indian parlimentary system as I see it is not the executive ministerial political leaders. Most of the senior cabinet rank people are competent individuals regardless of weather it is BJP or Congress in power. The Center is fine, the main problem is the regional level.

    The main issue holding India back from achieving its potential as a regional power is the abject lack of competent clean professional MLAs and senators and Chief Ministers at the regional/district/state level.

    India has some of the worst low-level politicians in Asia. They are mostly poorly educated, highly corrupt and do not have a professional attitude to their jobs. They are overweight, very old, and do not have the energy, or the stamina, or the intellect to lead India into this century. They are in politics for the sake of being rich and powerful and nothing else.

    Just look at the average age of the Indian politician......many are in their 60s and 70s.

    In short 90% of these MPs are the scum of the Scum.

    Nothing will change until young competent educated professional middle class Indians leave their corporate jobs, and run for office to replace these worthless class of politicians.

    India will never emerge as a world power until this political class is replaced.
     
  12. Daredevil

    Daredevil On Vacation! Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Messages:
    11,613
    Likes Received:
    5,670
    ^^You are spot on mate. Indian political culture has to change to bring about real progressive and positive changes in the development of India. Definitely, local level politicians doesn't have brains that are needed to run this country efficiently. But if you observe, polity of a nation reflects its population. As long as its citizens doesn't change so does the polity. I hope citizens of India vote to the candidates, who are educated and are progressive in thinking, irrespective of caste/creed/religion. Till then, this country will chug along much slower than its true potential.
     
  13. Antimony

    Antimony Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    10
    There can be many kinds o Presidential systems, which one do you want to follow? In the British Parliamnetary system which we follow, once you carry the legislative body (the parliament) you run the country. Remember how Indira Gandhi was able to put in Emergency once she had a super majority?

    In a well devised Presidential System there would be a greater number of checks band balances on the activities of the President. In the US, the Presidential Elections are different from the Legislative Elections (the Congress). The Congress can veto the Presidents decisions or force him to sign bills.

    If the President and Congress are at loggerheads, then nothing gets done. Remember Bill Clinton and George Bush's preseidencies at the ends of their terms, when the opposing party controlled the Congress?

    And if you want a system where the President calls the shots. what do you do if you et Mayawati or Laloo or Mulayam or Narandra Modi?
     
  14. Flint

    Flint Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,583
    Likes Received:
    25
    That is just one instance out of many. If the head-of-state had more authority, he wouldn't have to waste months and years (and also stake his reputation, remember the MPs waving wads of rupee notes in Parliament?) trying to bulldoze through.

    This time we were lucky that the Congress got a clear majority. Next time, we might not be so lucky.
     
  15. Flint

    Flint Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,583
    Likes Received:
    25
    Its a risk we have to take. In any case, I'm not suggesting that we remove all checks and balances, but the current situation makes it nearly impossible for the government to make important decisions.

     
  16. Antimony

    Antimony Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    10
    What I am trying to say that a Presidential system may make it even more impossible for a President to take important decisions, if he does not have control over the legislature.

    President Bush could go ahead with the War on Terror only because the US Congress allowed him to do so. Hillary, along with other Democrats, voted for the war, regardless of whatever she says now. On the other hand, Congress banded together and pushed through the US Farm Bill for 2008, overriding Bush's veto.

    So you see, a Presidential system may not be a guarantee that you will actually get anything done.

    In the end, if the political parties are polarised on issues and you do not have a clear majority, you will not get things done in a properly democratic system
     
  17. roma

    roma NRI in Europe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,248
    Likes Received:
    1,862
    well so now kalawati ( of Rahuls fame ) is also entering the the political fray , yet another example of inappropriate people offering themselves or rather taking advantage of the "opportunities" offered in the political system , never mind the nation. Until the POLITICAL system is streamlined, the country will be going around in circles achieveing, yes but only 40% of it's real capability , well if that's what the people want , who are we to object.
     
  18. tarunraju

    tarunraju Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    3,888
    Location:
    Hyderabad
    I completely agree with mattster. The Indian common-man's expectations from Democracy start from national political heavyweights, where he expects them to deliver on their goals set during elections. Each time a national heavyweight doesn't live up to the common-man's expectations, he is inclined towards more regional political heavyweights, even they fail, but are slightly better than national parties. The rot lies in the people on the ground doing the work for these national parties, and the dubious way in which they are given tickets to contest elections.

    Each time the political class ends up looking 'less than convincing', the Indian common-man's faith in democracy goes down. It is perhaps these problems that the Chinese want to stay away from, and use India as an example to convince their people about how democracy just doesn't work in countries such large and diverse, and densely populated.

    As for changing it, well, call me pessimistic, but nothing will change things. It's been proven that despite the small but notable increase in younger, more educated politicians taking seats in the parliament, nothing has changed. These 'young blood' are just PR men for the government and use their flamboyance to cover up their government's failures. They don't really reform anything, they usually contribute to the choltry of senior politicians who proxy-run the country through them.
     

Share This Page