Good system, bad system
JAN 26 - Presidential or parliamentary system? Which governance system should be chosen for the New Nepal? This debate has once again heated the political environment in Nepal. From politicians to academicians and media personnel; judgments and opinions have come forward from different corners of ideologies especially supporting the views of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and Nepali Congress. Before reaching a conclusion for the new federal model of Nepal, let’s briefly talk about the major forms of governance and their strengths and weakness.
In a presidential system, political and administrative powers are divided between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Officials in these branches serve special terms of office and different constituencies. The strength of this system is the potential to create a stable environment to implement programs as the tenure of executive ensured because the president cannot be removed by a simple majority of the legislative. The direct election can also enhance the link with the people. However, the risk is that the president may become autocratic due to a lack of checks and balance and she or he cannot be removed even if s/he loses all support. This is the strongest argument that critics of the president ial system have been pointing out. Under this system, there is less chance for a member of a minority community to be elected as a head of the executive.
The US symbolizes the strongest form of a presidential system, in the sense that the powers of the executive and legislative branches are separate, and legislatures at national and state level often have significant powers. In presidential systems, relations between individual members and constituents tend to be stronger. The president and individual members are directly accountable to the voters. A president is generally not constrained by civil servants if s/he chooses the right persons for the right jobs to effectively carry out policies and programs. And fighting among party seniors within the government and a party under a parliamentary system does not occur in a presidential one. The executive is too powerful and could turn dictatorial, which is the main concern of Nepali Congress and supporters of the parliamentarian system. And, they are visualizing Prachanda as a possible dictator.
What about the parliamentarian system? Is it better? A prime minister and cabinet derived from the legislature, exercise executive authority under this system where the parliament is sovereign. The UK represents the strongest form of parliamentary (also known as Westminster system). The possibility of creating an extensive and inclusive government in a deeply divided society is the strength of this system. Should the prime minister lose the confidence of the parliament in any situation, the prime minister can be removed at anytime. The prime minister can also call for a fresh election at anytime, which is considered an advantage of this system. This system may have a stronger role for federal units possible through representation of federal government. But the weakness of this system includes the possibility of a repeated dissolution of government due to division in the coalition. The government could collapse by a simple majority vote which may create political instability. Also, the government may not be able to introduce bold policies and programs for fear of being ousted. Nepal has already faced the consequence of this system. The politics of defection under a parliamentary system is ascribed to starting a culture of corruption, favouritism, nepotism and generating pressure groups that involve blackmail the ruling and opposition party. This is what Maoists and other critics of parliamentarian system argue. They have also illustrated that despite being a good leader Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai couldn’t do much in favour of people due to the loopholes of parliamentarian system of governance.
There is still one more option- mixed system (semi-presidential or semi-parliamentary) which is often termed as a hybrid. France represents this kind of model. The president usually has constitutional power to select the prime minister. If the constitution and political circumstances tend to place the emphasis on the power of the president, it turns to be a semi-presidential system. On the other hand, a semi-parliamentary system has a prime minister and the legislative leaders enjoy more power than the president = does.
Under this mixed system, because of power tussle between the president and the prime minister, it may create difficulty in reaching an agreement, especially when the prime minister is from another party. This situation may create conflict and deadlock as it combines the possible negative aspects of both presidential and parliamentary systems. At the same time, party discipline may discourage cooperation with the president, paralyzing the policy-making process. Worst case, the president can dissolve parliament and/or remove the prime minister. The prime minister is encouraged to play a balancing role, as he or she must maintain the confidence of both the president and the legislature.
Thus, no particular system of governance can be referred to as “good” or “bad” compared to each other. It actually depends on the intention, capability, and honesty of the leadership that is involved in implementing governance. It is not necessary that a particular system results everywhere in the same way. The political and social phenomena (among others facets) of a particular country may play a pivotal role for bad and good outcomes. As the country is reeling under the economic stagnation, political uncertainty, and rampant corruption, we need a strong form of governance that can solve these problems, no matter whether it is a presidential, parliamentarian or mixed system.
In each model, the criteria for the election of the president /prime minister, their qualification, term of office, accountability, and removal from office should be well defined. Similarly, the formation of the council of ministers, the approaches to make it inclusive, division of ministries, and necessary arrangements to run the ministries also need to be identified. A good system depends on how the relationship between the government and the legislative and the judiciary - the checks and balances and separation of powers prevail. Mutual relations, checks and balance between the central federal government, constituent federal units and local self-governments are also vital for the smooth functioning of the system. So, the question is not about whether we should choose a parliamentary, presidential, or mixed system but rather concerning how we can make our
system effective.
Posted on: 2012-01-27 08:41
Post Your Comment
Today's Paper
The Kantipur in Print
FROM THE PAST 7 DAYS
ENTER KEYWORD OR DATE
FROM THE PAST 7 DAYS
ENTER KEYWORD OR DATE
Abin
Shit! The note is lost. I had better avoid extemporising. ...have been told not to blab.
OUR PUBLICATION :
