It is boresome to refer to articles of the Indian Constitution every time, and boredom is the Indian Parliament where the constitution has been amended for the ninety third time, still it awaits more amendments to be made and one such is to curtail the powers of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha.

The longest Constitution in the world, a document containing 395 articles and 12 schedules is termed as prolix while there are only seven articles in the Constitution of the United States. We have not heard of any amendments made in it so far.

Now, the urgency calls for a fresh impetus on the future of parliamentary democracy in our country at least after the exercise of adult franchise in the three states of Punjab, Uttaranchal and Manipur.

Having experienced the poll activities for the 9th time since Manipur’s attainment of statehood, there is the need of analyzing the problems and prospects of keeping the spirit of parliamentary democracy alive in the country.

In reality, it may not be like what is being practiced in western countries. It is Article 75(1) of the constitution of India which provides that the Prime Minister shall be appointed by the President and the other Ministers shall be appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Political parties in the country are essentially to serve the end of securing a share of this executive power following the conventions established in advanced countries practising parliamentary democracy.

The source of power is the electorate, and in small countries like Switzerland, with a limited range of current problems, the country’s Constitution provides for the proportionate representation of all the parties, the office of the Prime Minister rotating between them.

Since irreconcilable differences are bound to arise under such a system, the Constitution provides for a referendum to the electorate.

Differences are thus solved. Since the electorate of Switzerland as an instance is well-educated, well-informed and, above all, relatively small in number—a little over 7 million — the system works well. The quintessence of democracy, an active national consensus, is always guaranteed.

It has now become manifest in a country like India that the principle of a national consensus is the practice of a sophisticated form of parliamentary democracy of the type obtained in the United Kingdom, but in a federal and not a unitary context.

In addition to the inherent difficulties of a federal type of Government, with 28 States and 7 Union Territories, on an average each as large as the average western European country, (as at present, the population of Uttar Pradesh alone is more than sixteen crores while that of the United Kingdom is only about six crores) the immense task of a planned economic and social development against an ever present threat to a national security, from within and without, calls for a national consensus, almost as in a State of war.

This can be secured by only a National Government, in which power is shared by parties. Now is the time to bring this about as the Congress has lost its historical charms owing to poor governance and the passing away of its many stalwarts, of which some of them were visionary and less corrupt.

The era of a single party winning absolute majority in the parliament or States’ Legislatures has come to a pass in the country as new political parties floated before every election at the Centre and the States can capture sufficient number of seats to support the single largest party to form Government at the Centre or in the States.

It is often opined that it is desirable to exclude the Communist party from a National Government as they believe in a one-party Government, which is the antithesis of a national Government as interpreted and, as well as in the violence as a means to bring about a change. They cannot be relied upon to work honestly for any national Government scheme that may be agreed upon.

But in deeper analysis, the Communist Party being absolutely secure and pragmatic in its approach should be included in the National Government once it is formed. If there are outstanding men suitable for inclusion, they should be included in the National Government, but within six months they must be elected on a party ticket.

The dominant consideration in India is, or should be, the challenging crisis that the country is facing today. Nothing less than the survival of democracy is at stake, which only an all-out effort by all the forces working towards such can save. The country has witnessed in the last one year a deplorable lowering of standards of public life, especially in the north-east region.

No one is secure in the region knowing not what will happen to every soul in the prevailing law and order situation. Smaller groups are hit more by the blow is an undeniable fact.

Members of legislatures thought nothing of defection and were willing to cross the floor as often as it suited their personal or factional interests before the anti-defection law was enforced in the country. Manipur was famous for it. But afterwards, the law gave the state a stable Government enabling it to have executed some of the important project works in Manipur.

And the result could have been foreseen: Congress Governments thrown out of office by discreditable tactics and replaced by the United Fronts or NDA — united only in their anxiety to stay in office. The record of the Congress Party was no better.

The leaders of the Congress Party should now calmly reflect on the impact of such a bid for power in utter disregard of all principles and conviction. They even more than the other groups should study the trends in voting in the general elections.

The Congress has in recent years been visibly weakened in organizational efficiency and in moral fervour; and its only hope of survival—and that of the country is in keeping a coalition with other political groups which genuinely believe in democracy as the way of life for our people.

The National Government of one’s conception should be formed thus: the Congress Party, as the largest unit, should take the initiative to invite the leaders of other democratic parties to determine the scope and extent of their participation in such a Government. There should be room in it for some non-party men of distinction.

National Govt at the centre is the theme common to all parties. Around this central theme are the following similar ideas: the political crisis today, the decline in importance and prestige of the Congress Party, the desirability of including the Communists, and the difficulties that Indian democracy is confronted with.

The major argument in the contention is that the sophisticated social trait of national consensus, which is needed to make democracy a success, is absent in India. The absence of such a consensus, the special difficulties that are being faced now and the decline in prestige of the Congress, call for the formation of a national Government at the Centre after a review of the poll outcome of recent assembly elections in the two states of Punjab and Uttaranchal.

In a similar manner, as the survival of democracy is being threatened primarily because of the lowering of standards of public life and the weaknesses of the Congress, a national Government is the crying need of the day. A comparable subargument is to build around the desirability of including the communists in such a national government on the consideration that their bonafides are not to be suspected apart from their belief in one party state.

The second contention is that as the Communists do not believe in democracy as the way of life, they should not be allowed to join the national Government. The problem is on the focus of western experience; whereas it is directly concerned with today’s political climate or practice, and thus, comes to a conclusion.

It has to be assumed that a national consensus with the communists is a must for the success of democracy; whereas it is analytical.

Although the attitude of the contentions are somewhat at variance, the predisposition is the same; a concern for the future of democracy in India, and a bias towards liberal democracy. Then, the intellectuals can intervene for visionary setting.

What intellectuals can and must contribute to the discussion of public issues is not technical competence but a peculiar and unique position within the public realm. They are the only social group that is not committed to a particular interest of position.

Intellectuals have a commitment only to the truth as they see it. They may be mistaken, or they even be corrupted by offering an ideological defence for a particular interest of position under the guise of professing the truth.

What the intellectuals have to say in the short run may be irrelevant to the issues at hand. They have a vital function to perform, a function that is both moral and practical. By confronting the powers that be with the truth, they erect a standard by which the actions of the Government can be judged. v They speak, in the Biblical phrase, truth to power. By doing this, they engage in a dialogue which establishes the intellectual respectability of alternative policies.

Thus, the intellectual, by providing an independent standard of evaluation, also provides the possibility for political change. It is for this reason that the powers that be are concerned with the intellectual as a threat to the status quo. They listen to the voice in the wilderness and try to still it; they read the handwriting on the wall and wish they could erase it.

In spite of his exposure to error and his political powerlessness in the short run, they pay the intellectual the compliment of hating him, persecuting him, trying to silence him—finally heeding him to get liberal democracy.