The Rediff Special / Atal Behari Vajpayee

The dream which we dreamt at the dawn of Independence must not, indeed, cannot be allowed to die

Former prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee reflected on India's future when he delivered the 13th Desraj Chowdhary Memorial Lecture in Delhi recently. This is what he had to say:

Going over the past 50 years, we find that things have not turned out as they were supposed to. We have no doubt taken giant strides and overcome many of the challenges posed by an underdeveloped economy, so much so, despite the onerous task of feeding a billion people, India boasts of a surplus food stock and exports agricultural produce, an achievement which is our pride and our neighbours's envy.

In a short span of half-a-century, we have fought four wars and have had to contend with insurgency within our territory. The biggest challenge to our democracy was overcome when the people rejected the Emergency regime in the 1977 election, thereby reasserting their democratic spirit. Radical legislation has brought about major social changes. Low resources notwithstanding, our scientists in the defence establishment have toiled night and day to strengthen our security apparatus.

No doubt a lot remains to be done, but the fact I wish to stress is that we have exhibited a resilience which few 'newly-independent countries' as they were known in the post-colonial era, have shown.

Yet, in spite of all these achievements, why is it that rather than celebrate the coming of age of India as a modern nation-state there is little or no rejoicing? More importantly, why is it that the political class no longer carries conviction and the supremacy of Parliament has been severely eroded? Those who were eager participants in the political process not many years ago have become indifferent, even cynical.

To my mind, that is the biggest damage caused by the practitioners of corruption. And the biggest challenge that we who have preached and practiced probity in public life face is to restore faith in the political class and rejuvenate the democratic process. The dream which we dreamt at the dawn of Independence must not, indeed, cannot be allowed to die.

Why is this so important? Simply put, because no democracy can survive if the political class dies and politics loses its primacy; democracy cannot survive on the pillars of people's cynicism, lack of hope, and absence of active participation. The result will be increasing chaos, corruption, instability and lawlessness, all of which will drive India further away from the cherished dreams of our forefathers who won freedom from the British yoke with their blood and toil.

Moreover, if the political class dies, it would pave the way for authoritarianism and further fragment our society, apart from fracturing our nation-state. I can prescribe a simple but rigorous prescription: Absolute probity in public life.

A second thought I would like to leave with you is to do with the system. I often wonder whether the Westminster model has been defeated by the Indian reality. Is it time to think in terms of a second republic? In the past too, I have mentioned the need to change the system -- not only of delivery of governance, but of governance itself.

When I see the ridiculous reduction of our parliamentary system to a level which allows a party with a tenth of the total number of seats to rule the country, or a party which is in imminent danger of losing its electoral symbol holding two key ministries of home and agriculture, I am left wondering whether those who framed the Constitution took this possibility into account.

What, then, should we do? Here are my suggestions:

A nationwide debate

One, let there be a serious nationwide debate on all the possible alternatives for systemic changes to cleanse our democratic governing system of its present ills. We should not shy away from discussing the merits of even the presidential system of government.

Two, if the presidential system of government is considered impractical or undesirable, then we should introduce radical and undelayed changes in the present parliamentary democracy system itself. Some of the changes worth considering are as follows:

Proportional representation: The present 'First past the post' system in which the candidate winning the largest number of votes in an election is declared the winner, irrespective of whether he had the first or the second preference support of the majority of the voters who exercise their franchise, weakens the representative character of elective bodies.

Thus, a party with a larger percentage of overall votes may still have a lower number of seats in the Lok Sabha or the Vidhan Sabhas. This anomaly needs to be corrected by introducing proportional representation for the political parties in at least 50 per cent of the total number of seats in the Lok Sabha and the Vidhan Sabhas.

I recently met the former prime minister of Japan who explained to me how his country has opted for a mixed system and gained tremendously in the process. Earlier, 511 seats in the Japanese Diet would be filled through direct elections. The total number of seats has been reduced to 500, of which 300 are now filled through direct elections and 200 through the system of proportional representation. Can we not think along these lines?

Democratic functioning of political parties: Internal democracy within political parties is an important pre-requisite for a healthy democratic culture at the national level. Unfortunately, free debate, accountability and regular organisational elections have become an exception rather than the norm among our political parties.

The Congress party, for example, has had no membership renewal drive and no organisational elections worth the name for many years now. It has established the pernicious and undemocratic culture of 'nomination from above.' I say this here not to score political points. But it should be obvious that a country's democratic ethos cannot remain sound when its oldest and still the largest political party itself abandons democratic functioning. I firmly believe that bigger political parties have a greater responsibility to redress this situation.

Public funding of elections: A broad all-party consensus is building up on this matter. There should, hence, be no further delay in putting this measure into effect.

The deputy prime minister of Australia, during a recent conversation, explained to me how elections in his country were funded by the government, and how this has destroyed the very sources of corruption which begins with political donations collected by political parties during election time. If we are to launch a frontal attack on corruption, it must begin with public funding of elections so that the scope of political donations during polls is eliminated entirely.

There should be total transparency and accountability in the collection of funds and their expenditure by political parties. The accounts of all political parties should be authentic, regularly audited and open to public.

India brooks no further delay in initiating a serious nationwide debate on these and other issues relating to our post-Independence democratic experience. We gave ourselves Swaraj 50 years ago. Let us now re-dedicate ourselves to the mission of giving ourselves SuRaj (good governance) by introducing the necessary systemic changes.