Comments on: Looking for New Leaders

By: Arby K

Arby K — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 07:42:48 +0000

@Charakan : I agree that a multi party democracy will be able to meet the diverse voices of a nation like ours. But, in India the multiple parties have a regional nature and rarely differ on idealogy (when u consider the Janata parivar). This is a cause of concern for me, because the parties will act for the sake their own regional votebank only, creating a regional divide in the long run. The parties that form government at the center should have a national focus.

By: Charakan

Charakan — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:07:40 +0000

In the current era of coalition politics in the Centre and in many States, a Prime Minister will not be able to be dictator.Parliamentary system gives voters more choices.Indian have umpteen number of political opinions.For voicing them we need Parliamentary democracy.It may not be very efficient governance,but will help in maintaining the integrity of the Country.Just my view.I respect your views to Arby.

By: Arby K

Arby K — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:55:55 +0000

@Patrix : Diversity becomes a threat when the focus of the ppl turn towards their region than the whole nation. The history of large nations with different cultures like USSR, Yugoslavia, Austria-Hungary, Habsburg Spain, Roman Empire, Mughal India shows that a weak central government and strong regions have led to the nation splitting up. The national parties in India are increasingly dependent on region based parties for forming government. It may be stable for the time being, but in the long run it is a negative sentiment.
@Charakan : Theoretically, Parliamentary Democracy is more autocratic than Presidential Democracy. In Parliamentary democracy, the executive (or the cabinet) will have majority in the legislature (besides being part of the legislature themselves). So the body that presents the bill can expect it to be passed into law. On the other hand, in a Presidential democracy, the executive need not have control over legislature and there can be effective control of the executive, should they overrun their franchise. And then there is the Anti Defection Act as prevalent in India.

By: Charakan

Charakan — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:41:13 +0000

Yes diversity can be a threat.In world history you will see that most of the Nations with this much diversity have disintegrated in to several smaller states. Multi party parliamentary democracy is one of the reason for India’s stability. All big private profit making institutions like Banks, shopping Malls, Hotels etc need to have a basic security system of their own. The specific instructions to beef up internal security of Taj was not complied fully. Nobody knew the nature of the coming attack.

By: Patrix

Patrix — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:23:22 +0000

Diversity can never be a threat in any democracy. In fact, it only seeks to strengthen it.

I fail to see how Ratan Tata can be blamed for the attacks. A private business can only provide so much security and they should not be expected to protect their establishments against a military-like attack. If each person is expected to protect their own property then why pay taxes for a police force or armed services?

By: Charakan

Charakan — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:58:55 +0000

Yes the diversity is a threat for the stability of India.But we cannot wish away that.Such diversity will be represented in Delhi only by a Parliamentary multi party democracy. The lack of understanding of that diversity is the cause for failure of Congress and the BJP to form single Party government.
Too much power in one person’s hand can turn a person to a dictator.It happened in many Third World countries.If India had a Presidential form of Government, India might have never elected some one outside Nehru-Gandhi as their leader.
BTW Ratan Tata is one of the culprits of Mumbai attacks.He failed in providing added security in his hotel despite getting warning about an impending attack.

By: Arby K

Arby K — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 14:15:17 +0000

@ Shreyash :
1) I know orkut and facebook probably is the most amateurish way of publicizing it, but the youth of the nation frequent both and so they seemed to be a good place to start. As for the rest, I am hoping ppl who believe I have something to contribute will help me spreading the word. I am open to any mode of communication.
2) I agree politicians are a reflection of the society they are from and the leaders have to come from within. But are the leaders we have the best around and are they doing their job with well directed intent? There is a clear disillusionment about politicians among the public, justified or not. If the current set is the best we have, status quo remains – almost. In a Presidential democracy there will be no ambiguity on who you are voting for to form a government and the elected government will not need to worry about losing majority everytime they have to take major decision that may be good for the country on the whole, but not for a small community which contributes an MP or two. Also, there will be better accountability because since the chain of command is definite and decided by the people.
We can have more effective governance with Presidential democracy. And it is entirely for the ppl to decide who should govern them.

By: Arby K

Arby K — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 13:11:05 +0000

The diversity works against us also at times. The parties at the centre are too fragmented that the government at times cannot make strong decisions because of concern over government stability. Also, the situation is such that the parties are looking at only their votebank and not the welfare of the entire nation when making decisions at the centre. A person who is elected by the nation has to focus on the nation as a whole and not just in parts.
Tata and Narayana Murthy are names that I have come across as national leaders outside Indian politics. It is why I used their names. It is not just them, but anyone outside the current system, who wishes to lead the nation, will benefit from Presidential Democracy.

By: Charakan

Charakan — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 12:56:46 +0000

India is one of the most culturally diverse country in the world with so many different languages, religions,castes, sub castes,a large dalit and tribal population, big differences in infrastructure between regions, huge gap between rich and poor etc. A presidential form of govt may not be suitable for India. CEO’s used to aiming maximising profits, selling off dead assets,laying off employees during recession and a dictatorial approach may not succeed as a political leader.

By: Shreyash

Shreyash — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 10:45:55 +0000

1. I understand that Vajpayee and Advani took a long time to build a national party like you have mentioned in your post.
I wonder how long you will take to get enough members on your Orkut and Facebook groups to make your dream of presidential form of governance a reality.
Could there be another way for concerned citizens like you to make a difference?

2. Politicians are a reflection of the society and they are from the society so no matter what form of governance we have the leaders will have to be from within. It is the well directed meaningful intent of the leaders and the society as a whole which goes towards nation building.

3. I guess there are 3 ways to serve the nation nowadays, by being a model citizen – paying ur taxes and obeying the pertinent rules, being in public or social service or by writing blogs. I am following the first path atleast for now…

By: Arby K

Arby K — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 06:48:17 +0000

Thanks for the post, JK.