Bangladeshi democratic system will be strengthened by two specific reform that relates to the office of the president – the way we elect President and the job description of the President
The office of the president represents the unity of the country where everything ends as far as state power is concerned. However, the way we have conceptualized the presidents responbilities and role in the governance structure needs further look.
The problem:
We think our lawmakers and policymakers had trouble with the idea of the President within a parliamentary system. Many parliamentary democracies have monarchy at the helm of the state power. These monarchs have become symbolic in most of the cases. Japan, Britain, Malaysia, Thailand, etc are few examples.
When designing our system in the light of those systems, our policymakers had trouble about how to handle the symbolic nature of those monarchs. The result is what we have today.
The basic assumption of designing the office of president in the light of those symbolic monarchs is faulty. It is faulty in two counts, at the least. First, Monarchs provide a fixed stability to the statecraft, since it is based on genetic lineage. Second, the monarchs are revered by the populace since the system relates to some historic precedence – though different in different countries. These two aspect of monarchs as head of state is most valuable where they exists.
However, when we tried to copy that – we could not ensure none of these two advantages. It is not possible. These two advantages – fixed stability through genetic lineage and reverence coming from history – both are inherent to the monarch system. Current day presidents office can not be designed to facilitate those two. It has to be recognized clearly. It seems that the designers did not quite understand this inherent problem with the current system. Its a problem that needs to be fixed.
The solution:
So, what are we suggesting? Do we need a monarch if we want a sound parliamentary system?
Nope.
The solution is NOT to try to copy our presidents office in the light of monarch which is mainly symbolic. You can not elect a person to become a symbolic force and give you the stability that monarchs give.
Rather you have to look for alternate. Here is a possible solution that seems reasonable to us. We think it is worth debating.
First of all, we would not be able to impose ‘fixed stability’ upon presidents office by electing a president. Inherently or theoretically, it is not possible. So, we should not try to achieve that. Rather we should try to achieve a competing value which is more important. We should design the presidents office that gives us dynamic stability. In other words, we would like our president’s office to give the state a ‘dynamic stability’ instead of ‘fixed stability’.
Secondly, we should give the president the reverance that the office needs. In monarch’s case, it comes from history. But in our presidents case, that is not possible. So, we should give him people’s mandate. But this mandate should not be similar to the prime ministers mandate who gets elected through MPs. When both president and prime minister gets elected by same group of people, it gives the wrong signal. Either these two elected official will compete each other for power or one of them will have to become powerless. In our case, the second was deemed necessary. But we think there are better options.
Let us discuss these two issues one by one.
President’s Office should provide the country dynamic stability:
In monarch case, the fixed stability comes from the genetic lineage. But its not possible for presidents. So, the president has to provide stability through policy – which we call dynamic stability. We think its a superior system compared to the fixed stability. If one examines the policy areas of the state, if you are asked to choose several policy areas, what will be those? We think we can safely choose defence, education, planning ministries which needs long term vision. So, the president should be given these three or any other combination of ministries. The president will conduct the ministries through expert appointments.
President’s Office should provide the country a place of reverance:
In monarch case, the reverance comes from historical lineage or events. But its not possible for presidents. So, the president has to achieve reverance through an alternate mechanism. We think the best way to get that is to elect the president through representatives of the societies. An electoral college can be formed to elect the president. This electoral college can consists of all the business chamber executive bodies, all the local government bodies, all the professional bodies, all the trade union bodies. This list can be extended if necessary. And the election commission office will be mandated to maintain an updated list of this electoral college.
We offer this draft plan for reform of presidents office for the experts, think-tanks and above all, politicians to consider. Whether it is done now or later, that will be a different question. But we think the ideas are worth the time for some brainstorming. A process of dialogue should start that will give us a meaningful office of president. But whatever the reform measures are, the presidents office should not be empowered to dismiss the parliament. In other words, the office of president should not be allowed to disturb the parliamentary democracy in any gross way.
If you thought some of the ideas are worth of your reading time, please forward it to others. If you have an ear to the columinsts in regular traditional media, please forward it to them. If you have an ear to the journalists and news editors of the electronic media, discuss it with them. Hope they would look at the suggestions and give due diligence.
Innovation Line
Innovation Line