CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
India needs a new Constitution and the Presidential System
A Constitution for limited Government and maximum liberty
The repeal of the farm-laws has made it clear that the nation under the current Constitution with the Parliamentarian system is beyond repair. For over a decade the political class has lamented the outdated agricultural practices of the nation. Prime-Minister Modi showed courage to implement the reforms, only to be smeared by the people, who these reforms are supposed to help and then to be back-stabbed by the very same people, who proposed these reforms and failed for decades to implement them. Reforms never come cheap, still cheaper than reform backlog, though!
The Prime-Minister sure has to carry his share of the blame. It has been alleged he has rushed the reforms through without much debate and failed to communicate them properly. The Prime-Minister should have stayed the course, if necessary arrested the trouble-makers and even confiscated their property, but instead he backtracked. Rakesh Tikait played a weak hand, but he understood how this system works; no surprise he‘s back with even more brazen demands. Observers presume the BJP repealed the laws, because party-officials were afraid to loose upcoming elections to opportunistic challengers; a rightful fear, since Indian politicians often promise irresponsible freebies to win elections.
One must look beyond the failures of one Prime-Minister and point fingers at the systematic flaws of this political system, that made it impossible for him to succeed. This socialist Constitution emboldens an industry of opportunistic politicians, bureaucrats, ’social activists’, Marxists, crooked industrialists, unions and vested interests with cheers from leftist newspapers and uninformed foreigners to loot society in exchange for votes and bribes, while they fight over a piece of a shrinking pie to satisfy their shameless sense of entitlement. It is Socialism, that failed overall society, especially the poor. Socialism excelled however in grooming a middlemen-mafia and an arrogant bureaucracy, that always feels in charge, but never feels accountable. The public education-system failed to generate skilled workers, that could justify the prospect of a 10-Trillion-Dollar-Economy. In the time of automation and AI, the job-market for unskilled labor shrinks. Researchers hand in largely worthless scientific papers, but not enough innovative patents. A large group of unskilled, unemployed and unemployable men will be a source of instability rather than GDP, while the few productive workers seek their fortune abroad. Upgrading infrastructure may provide a short-term-boost, but if the Government splurges too much on infrastructure, spending may very well lead to a dept-trap as witnessed in China. All those fantasies about India as a superpower are torpedoed by economic realities. Being the most populated country, gargantuan investment-programs, wandering around India (during work-hours of the Parliament) or empty slogans won’t fix that. Yelling at critics won’t fix anything, either. The President still owes Nadav Lapid an apology on behalf of the entire nation for the totally unacceptable treatment the Director had to face after he told the truth about the movie ‘The Kashmir Files’; one can only hope he didn’t give up on India and finds his way back. Remember, true friends don’t let friends drink and drive!
India under Narasimha Rao removed the licence raj, because with the looming bankruptcy people realized that the bureaucracy needed to be dismantled, which then brought unprecedented economic growth. But instead of continuing market-liberation, Indian politicians went back to creating Government-programs to control the economy, because the current system allowed them to. Sure, other countries with Parliamentarian Systems managed to liberate their economies; even China under the Communist Party became gradually more liberal before Chairman Xi Jinping. But the test of a system is whether it stays free despite all odds, which is imperative in a nation, where politicians happily abuse their power to stay in power.
Many pundits have long blamed the current system for the lack of development during the last 75 years. They are right: The only solution lies in scraping the old socialist system and starting from scratch. Even where Government-programs are called for the current system is not made up people with the credibility to design such programs. Changing the Constitution represents a better strategy, because the current pace of reforms is insufficient and the clock is ticking. Installing an entirely new Constitution with strong provisions for good-governance will have a compounded positive effect, that far exceeds the effects aggregated by multiple reforms under the current system. Investors will immediately pour into the nation in eager anticipation of a more friendly business-climate, which may take the wind out of the sails of potential objectors.
But there is one word missing from this debate: liberty. Typical pundits want less corruption and more accountability. They wish for visionary leaders and (supposedly) honest Government-officials to create sophisticated Government-programs and by that fix the economy. Actually, the Soviet-Union employed plenty of highly trained experts writing sophisticated economic plans; they failed nonetheless while their citizens fled to the west to flourish under democracy and capitalism. In reality, countries never developed due to some decisive visionary leader or sophisticated Government-programs. All the great nations in history preserved a maximum of personal and economic liberty! India needs less Government, not smarter Government! Even if one believes in Government-programs, the current system is not made up people with the credibility to design such programs.
The Parliamentarian System is not suited to maximize and maintain liberty, because it hands too much power to political parties. Debates are held effectively among the Party Leaders, not among the individuals occupying the seats in Parliament. The Legislative Branch tends to become the toady of the Executive Branch or the other way round. Motions are rushed through often without proper deliberation or due attention to consequences. Such a system rewards to be activist political players, who do, not prevent, political activity and encourages rent-seeking. Since voters all too often stick with their preferred political party over a long period of time for purely emotional reasons, accountability for bad performance is insufficiently attributed. Arguments made by Prof. Juan Linz or Prof. Tarunabh Khaitan for the Parliamentarian System over other systems have been questioned already.
Adopting a Presidential System to break the above mentioned power of political parties makes sense as a first step, but the final result must be liberty. People prefer to live where they feel free to pursue their own interests and ambitions without undue interference. The only system that ever eradicated poverty was the free-market (not crony capitalism), where people out of self-interest through work and innovation produce goods and services that society (actually) needs and by that increase the pie for everyone. Therefor the main role of Government is to protect liberty.
Highlighted in the article “Why adopting the US presidential system is just cosmetic change, not reform” are the systematic shortcomings in the US-system. The Presidential System in the US is no more equipped to defend liberty than the Parliamentarian System, evident by their many laws and regulations, the size of their administrative staff as well as spending of their Government. The US-System isn’t nearly as adaptive as supporters claim: In 20 years they failed to remove the Electoral College, not even after Trump was elected. To call the US a democratic, capitalistic or libertarian society with small a Government is nothing but a lie¹! Simply copying the system of that (or any other) country despite all well understood flaws would achieve nothing more than make Indians look silly; the goal must be to be better than the US (or Switzerland or Taiwan), not just to be like one of those nations. Therefor, one must invent a new Presidential System, if the available choices, including the one currently in place, are insufficient.
Outlined in the graph above is a better potential Presidential System; a first draft to highlight what provisions and incentive-structure a Constitution must include to make any politician do the right thing, not just wait for angels to run the country. Shortcomings suspected in the Presidential Systems in other countries would be eliminated². Unlike the US-system it is designed to be simple, small, inexpensive and less theatrical. The proposed system strips Government of every useless element and only leaves in the elements proven to be useful. It boasts legally enforceable ethics-rules for all elected officials and punishment for unconstitutional or unbecoming promises during elections. Term-limits and age-restrictions dissolve the permanent political class. The Elected Officials would actually enjoy the backing of a robust majority, not by a hand full of votes. Responsible incumbents wouldn’t fear loosing elections to opportunistic challengers making unrealistic promises and instead focus on building functioning institutions. Governments (Municipality, State, Union) all must earn their own taxes independently, which raises expectations for fiscal responsibility and performance of Government-services. The Assembly of States ensures decentralization of governance. A simple legal- and tax-code makes investment attractive by minimizing administrative overhead in businesses. Strong contract-laws and a limited set of regulations ensure favorable business-environment and facilitate sustainable growth. Anyone can challenge laws, regulations, spending, bureaucracy, etc. via referenda and petitions. With such heavy safeguards against Government-expansion the various vested interests will disappear: Freedom would finally have a lobby.
A new libertarian Constitution is urgently required, if one hopes for the Reunification of the Indian Subcontinent. One reason for Partition back then was the Constitution proposed by the Congress party centralized power in New Delhi. A nation as large and diverse as India however can only be be run highly decentralized with emphasis on local governance.
The hopefully newly added territories would also keep the nation young for a longer time. In truth, the demographic dividend will soon run out. Any reform of the economy will take time to kick in. The young people in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Sindh, Punjab, Kashmir and Nepal would prolong the period, where India can benefit from its young population.
One may hope the Prime-Minster starts thinking about his legacy. He would the architect of a liberal nation; by that he would finally cleanse the nation of its colonial past. By changing the Constitution his position in history would rival Nehru, Gandhi or Rao. Indeed, the above Constitution with emphasis on local Government would have been closer to the vision for the nation of the Mahatma.
¹ On issues like the debt, number of Government officials or ratio of Government expenditure to GDP India already fairs better than the US. Despite all these shortcomings, a group of snake-oil salesmen with limited understanding still push for the US-System.
² Juan Linz listed issues with the Presidential System in the paper “The Perils of Presidentialism”. But the paper is not that meaningful and has been dismantled by other scholars already, including by Scott Mainwaring and Matthew Shugart in “Juan Linz, Presidentialism, and Democracy: A Critical Appraisal”.
³ The problem lies indeed in the legal framework, the regulatory burden, a complicated tax-code and the lack of credibility of public institutions, not the actual size of Government.
