|
India Thinkers Net Archives Index
|
Subscribe
|
|
| << October25, 2004 - [India Thinkers Net]KERALA FISHERMEN IN PAK JAIL: CHRO URGENT APPEAL |
October28, 2004 - [India Thinkers Net]Was Veerappan killed in a fake encounter? >> |
|
From: Satinath Choudhary <satichou@yahoo.com> Date: Tue Oct 26, 2004 Subject: An Open letter to Hon??™ble Mrs. Gandhi and Mr. Pawar An Open letter to Hon??™ble Mrs. Gandhi and Mr. Pawar October 25, 2004 To Hon??™ble Sonia Gandhi President Indian National Congress & Hon??™ble Sharad Pawar President Nationalist Congress Party India Subject: Sharing Power in Maharashtra with fairness and justice Contents: Power Sharing in Switzerland: 2 A process of electing a well balanced seven member team: 2 Advantages of forming multi-member collective of seven as Executive Council by the above process: 3 Power can be shared without making any side feel disappointed and bitter: 5 Should it be 7-member or 43-member executive?: 6 Let the members of the winning coalition decide between 7-member or 43-member executive: 6 Let the MLAs put forward their vision for tomorrow and get acquainted with each other: 7 Fairness, transparency and integrity at the top trickles down to the bottom: 8 Bottom up election is real democracy while top down ???appointments??? smack autocracy: 8 Dear Hon??™ble Sonia jee & Pawar jee, First of all I would like to congratulate you, Congress and NCP for having defeated fascist coalition of BJP and Shiva Sena in Maharashtra. What puzzles me is that when a pig-headed party like BJP can reach agreement with other parties even if they have diagonally opposite ideologies and rule, why can??™t saner parties learn the art of sharing power from their enemy? Here is a suggestion for trying something new by the Congress-NCP coalition in Maharashtra. You could try a Swiss style (seven persons) Executive Council. First allow me to briefly describe the Swiss system, though you must already know all that I am going to say. Thereafter I will try to present a possible Indian model of the same, followed by advantages of trying the new model in India, and other considerations. Power Sharing in Switzerland: In Switzerland they hold elections using Proportional Representation (PR) system. Under PR each party gets number of seats in proportion to votes that a party gets. Members from their four relatively large parties that win a total of nearly 70% of the seats in the Swiss Parliament, form the Executive Committee (EC), per what they call ???Golden Rule???. According to this rule the largest three parties contribute two members each, with the seventh member coming from the fourth party in size. Each of these parties nominates three or four members for the EC. From among the nominees a collection of seven is made conforming with the said golden rule of 2+2+2+1 and also making sure that two of the members speak French and one speaks Italian. Keeping these constraints in mind, the Parliament votes and approves the seven-member EC. The Committee is elected for the full term of the Parliament, i.e., for four years. This insulates the EC from the Parliament and provides separation of the Executive from the legislative body. The fixed term also imparts stability to the Council as well as to the Parliament. The seven members of the EC enjoy equal power. They share the responsibility of chairperson on a rotating basis for a year each, on seniority basis. However, the chair does not have any more power than the other members, even though he or she does act as the Head of State in welcoming other Heads of State and for representing Switzerland outside Switzerland. A process of electing a well balanced seven member team: In Maharashtra one could ask members of the Congress-NCP coalition and others who want to join them to form seven different groups of nearly equal size on whatever basis they feel like, it should be left entirely up to the members to form groups on whatever basis they want. If a group is too big, it has to split. If a group is too small, it should dismantle and join others. Each of those seven groups could then nominate three persons for their Executive Council. They could do this nomination from within each group by using Approval Voting (AV) system. AV system works as follows. Each person within the group may approve as many people from within the group as they feel like. The top three persons getting the largest number of approvals would be the nominees from each of the seven groups, totaling 21. The 21 must contain at least one person from SC, ST, LBC (Lower BC), UBC (upper BC), Muslim, UC (Upper Caste), and at least one who does not fit in any of the categories mentioned above. The group of 21 nominees must also have at least three women among them. If it does not, we will have to look back into all approval votes and pick out three women with largest approvals. They will replace men from their respective groups with lowest approvals. From the 21 nominees, the ruling coalition will need to form an EC (Executive Council) composed of at least one from each of the segments SC, ST, LBC, UBC, Muslim, UC, and at least three women, exactly three individuals from the Congress and NCP, each, and one who is from neither of these two main parties. They could use AV again with the understanding that first three women with highest approvals would be inducted into the EC, followed by four more individuals (they could include more women), scanning through the list of 21 nominees in descending order of approvals in making selections, and making sure that all of the above mentioned conditions on quotas are met. The process indicated above or some other one similar to it would ensure caste, gender, religion and party parity and ideological balance from within the winning coalition. The seven members of the EC would thus be considered elected for the next five years. It will to act as joint Chief Minister. They would to work in a consensual fashion. Consensus doesn??™t necessarily mean unanimity. But it does stipulate an earnest effort towards accommodation and unanimity as far as possible on each issue, and then moving on. They may appoint some cabinet members from outside the parliament. To avoid connection between the Executive Council and the Assembly the EC would avoid choosing any cabinet members from within the Assembly. At the Cabinet level also, the EC may like to appoint groups of 3-5 individuals for heading various departments of the government, and try to ensure caste, gender, religion and party balance in the total composition of the cabinet. These cabinet members could be given the titles of secretaries like those in the USA. Advantages of forming multi-member collective of seven as Executive Council by the above process: 1. We know that a multi-member bench is supposed to have greater integrity and trust of the people. That is the reason why in Supreme Courts and High Courts they form multi-member benches for hearing important court castes. Election Commission is composed of three Commissioners. Why not borrow this convention from courts and Election Commission into political arena? It may impart greatly needed integrity and transparency to the government. 2. The EC collective and the cabinet would be well balanced in caste, religion, party and gender representation, in conformity with the tenets of social justice. 3. Since other cabinet members would be from outside Assembly, a much larger pool of ???experts??? would be available to the EC to choose from. 4. Fixed term for the EC will cause the EC to be independent of the Legislative Assembly. Moreover, the EC members may give up their voting privilege in the Assembly except in case of important legislations, which may be of considerable importance and may be hanging in balance. It should be like speaker of a house usually abstains from most of voting, except for the sake of breaking deadlocks. 5. This kind of setup would be essential, in case we try to experiment with PR system of election in India. Westminster type of parliamentary government with PR may tend to be unstable. Besides, on account of mixing executive and legislative functions, the Parliament of Assembly tends to have too much power. An experiment with the above described Swiss like EC system would open us up towards trying new setups. 6. A PR system of election suitable for India, and strategies to bring about the needed change, has been described in a booklet entitled ???Eradicating Sangh Parivar from India by Ushering Total Democracy with PR-based Primary Elections???, has been uploaded at http://www.geocities.com/satichou/Eradicating_Sangh_Parivar_from_India.htm 7. Reduced ministry size composed of a well balanced team and its disconnection from the legislative wing is likely to contribute towards considerably increased fairness, transparency and integrity of administration. 8. The new system will encourage us to study the working of Swiss and other European governments, which appear to enjoy enormous peace, social security and prosperity with their power sharing systems. 9. Somewhat like India, though on a reduced scale, Switzerland is a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual country. But unlike India, Switzerland??™s linguistic and ethnic groups appear to be enjoying enviable peace, prosperity and amity. We can learn a lot from their way of thinking, living, governance and sharing power among all segments. 10. Congress and NCP have emerged in a markedly equal strength. It would not be fair to choose one over the other for Chief Ministerial position. Instead of being source of contention, their balance can become a source of their strength if they could join hands in sharing power. Partnerships always require justice and fairness. It is high time we started looking around and experimenting with new ways of doing things. If we don??™t get out of the rut, we would never know if another way of doing things would have been better. Maharashtra provides us with a golden opportunity to try the way the Swiss do things. They (The Swiss) have done very well. Switzerland??™s linguistic groups of Germans (75%), French (20%) and Italians (4%) appear to be enjoying enviable peace, prosperity and amity. Prime reason for their peace and prosperity is their system of sharing power. We can learn a lot from their way of thinking and governance. Why not try their way and see how it works for us? Power can be shared without making any side feel disappointed and bitter: No matter which side eventually holds the position of Chief Minister, the other side is likely to be unhappy, sullen, disappointed and even bitter from the final settlement. Why sow the seeds of unhappiness among them and allow the Sanghies room for playing their mischief? Let us try Swiss way of doing things and see how it works out. This is the golden opportunity to try and formulate our own version of golden rule analogous to what the Swiss have. Should it be 7-member or 43-member executive?: After I wrote out the above presentation, I realized that the system given above may not get enough support from many of the individuals in both parties who may have their sights set on bagging one of the ???lucrative??? ministerial positions, with many perks and privileges attached. I feel happy that the size of ministry has now been limited to 43 (though it could have probably been much smaller). I am sure all of those positions will have to be filled up to the said limit to satiate appetite of the expectant and salivating MLAs for those plum ministerial positions. All of the MLAs left out without a ministry are likely to feel disappointed and even bitter against the leadership. Let the members of the winning coalition decide between 7-member or 43-member executive: I think if a decision is made at the top in favor of 7-member (rather than 43-member) executive, it is possible many of the MLAs may revolt. On the other hand if it is left up to the members of the winning coalition to choose between 7-member executive and 43-member executive. In case of 43-member ministry, 129 out of the 172 winning coalition will be left out of the ministry. This may cause a good majority of the MLAs think that their chances of getting selected to be a minister are slim. This may cause them to vote in favor of 7-member executive. Some jealousy against those that would be getting a ministerial berth may become one of the motivations in favor of smaller executive of 7-members. Advantages of a small 7-member executive may play additional and conclusive role in causing them to vote in favor of smaller ministry. This shows that if it is left to them, the winning legislators may like to do the right thing of keeping going for smaller executive. Instead, if it is the party leaders from the top were to decide, they are more likely to decide in favor of 43-member executive, fearing a revolt if the high-command decides in favor of smaller 7-member executive committee. This as well as to uphold democratic ideals, Congress and NCP high commands should leave it up to the MLAs to sort things out and choose a smaller ministry or a larger one (of 43 members). Moreover, it is the winning coalition??™s vote subject to the fairness rule outlined in the section, ???A process of electing a well balanced seven member team??? that should elect the well-balanced executive group. If it is the vote of the MLAs themselves that picks the ministers, the others are not likely to hold any kind of grudge against the leadership. Otherwise, if the executive is selected rather than elected, those left out are likely to feel disappointed and bitter against the top leadership. In case the Assembly decides in favor of 43-member executive, even in this case it may be best to leave the decision of formation of the ministry in the hands of the winning coalition members rather than picking a Chief Minister and then letting him/her form the ministry. The latter approach would draw criticism of favoritism, nepotism, cronyism, bias, discrimination, prejudice and so forth. Why not leave it all to be decided by the legislators? They could elect six teams of seven persons each, adding up to 42 member administration. Else one of the teams could have eight members, bringing the total to full complement of 43. Let the MLAs put forward their vision for tomorrow and get acquainted with each other: Prior to voting and forming a ministry, MLAs should have a chance to hear each other and get familiar with each other. To this end, it may perhaps be best for the new assembly meet and discuss the new direction that the state should be taking, for a period of a month or two. During that period the lame-duck government could continue to function, while the newly elected or re-elected members get a chance to get acquainted with each other and gauge each others??™ ability. One of the things they will decide about will be the function of the six ministries to be created, including that of the Chief Minister??™s ministry, each to be headed by 7 member teams, except for one, which may be composed of 8 members. Various members may speak and present their views about ways and means of accomplishing things by those ministries. After each discussion about a ministry, the MLAs would vote to elect a seven or eight member team to head the ministry by the process outlined earlier under the title ???Process of electing a well balanced seven member team???. The first team to be elected would function as Chief Minister, followed by other teams to head other ministries. This kind of process is not likely to leave bitterness in the heart and mind of MLAs who are not elected as part of the ministry. They are more likely to take it as their own inability to communicate. Certainly, they won??™t be able to blame any of the leaders. Fairness, transparency and integrity at the top trickles down to the bottom: The process described above appears to be fair and square. Fairness, transparency and integrity at the top, or a lack of the same, have a lot to do with Justice, openness and honesty at the lower levels, or a lack of the same. The cause of fairness, justice, transparency, openness and integrity would be further enhanced by the replacement of single person leadership of various ministries by well balanced 7-member collective leadership. In ministries headed by single persons it is not only favoritism and nepotism that are enemies of integrity; outright, hatred of these individuals towards castes other than their own can stifle the progress of the society completely. First of all, people are more inhibited in unethical practices in collaboration with several others, which is why important cases are adjudicated by multi-judge benches than single ones. In case of ministries well balanced collectives the presence of various castes, religions and gender in the group may inhibit people from acting out not only their favoritism but their prejudices as well. I still think that a small 7-member executive, that may supplement itself with prominent experts of proven integrity from outside the Assembly would be better if the winning coalition chooses the same. But if the Assembly votes in favor of 43-member executive, we can still incorporate elements of fairness, transparency and integrity underlying leadership provided by a well balanced teams of seven. Even if the whole 43-member administration abstains from voting most of the time, the winning coalition would still have 129 members on the floor of the Assembly to beat out any concerted effort towards mischief by the BJP/Shiva Sena opposition. In the future, when Proportional Representation system of election will totally decimate Sangh Parivar, we may think of all party ministries like those in Switzerland. At the present time we cannot think of including the rogue Sangh Parivar in the ministry. Bottom up election is real democracy while top down ???appointments??? smack autocracy: I have thus outlined the possibilities of 7-member as well as 43-member executives. Let the ruling coalition MLAs of (Congress + NCP + others) discuss these two possibilities and present their visions for the future of Maharashtra for a month or two. That will give them a chance to fully understand implications of all smaller and larger executives and they will also get a chance to become familiar with each other. They can then vote in favor of one of these setups, and go on to elect members for the same. That will be a bottom up democracy, as it should be. Top down appointments smack more of autocracy than democracy. The manner in which this tangle is resolved would be important for the welfare and amicable survival of the coalition, not only in Maharashtra, but all over the nation. I beg your pardon for the length of this letter. Thank you for your forbearance. I would very much appreciate if you would be kind enough to let me know what you think of this proposal. With my warmest regards to you, Dr. Satinath Choudhary Retired College professor & an activist 115 West 238 Street Bronx, New York 10463 USA Phone: 718-548-5249 Email: satichou@y... |
|
| << October25, 2004 - [India Thinkers Net]KERALA FISHERMEN IN PAK JAIL: CHRO URGENT APPEAL |
October28, 2004 - [India Thinkers Net]Was Veerappan killed in a fake encounter? >> |
|
India Thinkers Net Archives Index
|
Subscribe
|
|
|
Archives powered by Zinester's Mailing List Service
Details on India Thinkers Net |
Browse for more newsletters at Zinester's Ezine Directory
Managed by Zinester's Mailing List Management |