 KIRAN PANDAY |
Under a federal system, the number of provinces, its structure and the relationship between the central and provincial government determines the executive power. The central government-be it federal or unitary-of a sovereign country, in principle has the responsibility for national integration, national identities, the rights of indigenous people and the general populace as a whole. Therefore, there has to be constitutional provision that the central government should be given the major share of executive rights.
The structure of legislative and executive bodies in the centre and provinces are the same in a parliamentary and presidential system. The constitution should specify the duties of the centre and provinces to avert debate between them in future.
Although the centre should be relatively stronger than the provinces, there has to be a balance in dividing power between the centre and provinces. In the US, for example, the executive and legislative rights have been divided between congress and the president to achieve a balance of power.
In a parliamentary system, the formation of the government - or the cabinet - reflects the lower house majority and ministers are also nominated by the legislative. If there is a clear majority in the lower house, it becomes easy for the government to pass budgets and other bills in the house. The government needs the support of the legislative to stay in power, which can also make the government vulnerable.
In a presidential system, the president is elected directly and thus can stay in power without support from the legislative. The president nominates ministers although there are certain procedures to be followed which need the support of the legislative. For instance, Russia elects its president but the cabinet is finalised with the support of the lower house. The UML and the NC have proposed adopting the parliamentary system with a president without executive rights while the Maoists have proposed a presidential system. The majority of the world's federal countries have opted for a president without executive power.
The prime minister is not always elected by the parliament. In the British model, parliament elects the PM while in Israel the PM is elected by the people. The UML has proposed the PM should be directly elected, which has merits and demerits. The elected PM is considered to be more accountable to the people but this risks prompting a power struggle between government and the PM.
Provisions can made in the constitution regarding an elected PM, such as offering a no confidence motion more than once a year. If the motion is passed, the PM either resigns or dissolves parliament. The same can apply to the ministers. The provision should be made that the same person can not serve more than two terms as the PM.
The council of ministers should be formed with 10 per cent members of the lower house, of which only half of the ministers should be elected parliamentarians.
There has to be a chief of province or governor in provinces, appointed by the president on recommendation of the chief minister of the province. The governor also should not be given more than two consecutive terms and two thirds of the legislative can impeach him.
The provincial government is supposed to engage in local development activities, so it should be formed on the basis of participation rather than majority. The political parties having 10 per cent of seats should have proportional representation in government. There should not be more than 10 ministers in the provinces. The provincial government chief and ministers could be impeached with two thirds of the legislative vote. The chief of the government should not be allowed more than two terms.
Bhattarai is a constitutional expert and president of Forum for Legal Professionals.
