Whenever a strong leader makes it to the top, her / his followers raise a demand for the Presidential system of Government. It happened in Indira Gandhi's time and we have heard the voices in the current times too.
What has happened in reality is that we are already into a semi-Presidential system. Do you say how? Well, now every political party requires not only a symbol but also a face, a face for the topmost position if it gets a majority. It is this face that does most of the campaigning, the actual candidates from different constituencies being of little consequence. If there is resentment in a some constituencies agaist the local candidate on account of his being corrupt or a known criminal, the voters are plainly told that you are NOT voting for that candidate but for "the face:" That the candidates are merely hands, mere instruments, in the hands of the face which is the seat of the brain too that commands these mere limbs.
A reaffirmation of faith in the true democratic principles is heard only when the face is uncertain of attracting the masses at the state or national level, as the case may be. In such a case the concerned party will say that a person will be chosen for the top position in a democratic manner by the elected representatives and that the electorate should vote on the basis of policies and the manifesto and not personalities. Otherwise as we said, they plead for one country one leader or somethig to the same effect.
In this day of strong leaders, the semi-presidential system is doing harm to the system which was not designed for this form of government. As most of the legislators owe their victory to a single person and hence have little voice of their own, the whole system becomes a hostage to the strong leader. This further fuels this person's ambitions for consolidating his hold and this leads to a corrosive approach to the other counterbalancing players and institutions in the system such as judiciary or media etc. This would not happen if the person at the top felt that he didn't own the legislators but owed his position to them. And in this case, the legislators will exercise the first level of control on the ambitions of the person at the top and keep it from trying to subjugate all checks and balances.
If we see merit in having a strong leader then we should also consider suitably modifying the Constitution to implement checks and balances that meet the requirements of a Presidential form of government. Else we might end up having worst of both the worlds.
What has happened in reality is that we are already into a semi-Presidential system. Do you say how? Well, now every political party requires not only a symbol but also a face, a face for the topmost position if it gets a majority. It is this face that does most of the campaigning, the actual candidates from different constituencies being of little consequence. If there is resentment in a some constituencies agaist the local candidate on account of his being corrupt or a known criminal, the voters are plainly told that you are NOT voting for that candidate but for "the face:" That the candidates are merely hands, mere instruments, in the hands of the face which is the seat of the brain too that commands these mere limbs.
A reaffirmation of faith in the true democratic principles is heard only when the face is uncertain of attracting the masses at the state or national level, as the case may be. In such a case the concerned party will say that a person will be chosen for the top position in a democratic manner by the elected representatives and that the electorate should vote on the basis of policies and the manifesto and not personalities. Otherwise as we said, they plead for one country one leader or somethig to the same effect.
In this day of strong leaders, the semi-presidential system is doing harm to the system which was not designed for this form of government. As most of the legislators owe their victory to a single person and hence have little voice of their own, the whole system becomes a hostage to the strong leader. This further fuels this person's ambitions for consolidating his hold and this leads to a corrosive approach to the other counterbalancing players and institutions in the system such as judiciary or media etc. This would not happen if the person at the top felt that he didn't own the legislators but owed his position to them. And in this case, the legislators will exercise the first level of control on the ambitions of the person at the top and keep it from trying to subjugate all checks and balances.
If we see merit in having a strong leader then we should also consider suitably modifying the Constitution to implement checks and balances that meet the requirements of a Presidential form of government. Else we might end up having worst of both the worlds.
