Our parliamentarians could learn a thing or two from the American system. Seventy per cent of all Americans are baying for more evidence to be produced before the trial. Then again, the country has a jury system for trials in courts and all capable citizens are expected to do jury duty. Those in our military are fortunate as they get opportunities to serve on juries during court martial. This gives a sense of fairness.
Group Captain Murli Menon (Retd)
Defence analyst
Two hundred and fifty years versus seventy… the gross disparity in the years under the belt of the American and Indian democracies may explain why we are way behind in some of the decorum and solemnity aspects of parliamentary conduct by the elected representatives. No cell phones, no mutual consultations and strict exhortations by the Chief Justice or president of the Senate to take violators to task, makes one wonder about the virtual bedlam that prevails in our own sabhas during most key discussions and deliberations.
Though the Indian Constitution only caters for a presidential impeachment — a provision statedly ‘borrowed’ from the Americans by our own Ambedkar — we are yet to invoke these even once in our country, whilst the Americans are in their third round now. The graphic coverage by all leading TV channels, superlative presentations by senators employing vivid audio visuals, use of social media platforms like WhatsApp and email to elicit evidence and the right to information provisions make the US Senate impeachment proceedings a spectacle to behold. The strengths and weaknesses of the American Congress/Senate parliamentary system are on display for all to see and emulate as deemed fit by the other aspiring democratic dispensations.
After Day 1, my take as a near-innocent bystander in New York, is that the Grand Old Party (Republicans) has taken a beating, perception battle- wise, regardless of the fact that the trial may well be headed for an acquittal of President Donald Trump.
The irony of the situation has not been lost on anyone — the same country which had been pressuring the Ukranians to shun corruption in their government — finds its own President under trial for the malaise. Withholding of US military aid to Ukraine against a caveat to target his own political foes back home, through witch-hunts in that country, was the primary cause of the Democratic ire alright.
It was vividly brought out in a lucid presentation by first-time Senator and ex-US Army Captain Jason Crow of Colorado, who talked of how as a soldier in Iraq, he had felt deprived of equipment thanks to a paucity of US government funding, as indeed President Trump had sought to do to US ally Ukraine. It is a different matter that the resilience of the US Congress managed to still pass the military aid to Ukraine ultimately, despite a presidential effort to deny the same illegally.
Some of the charges against Trump are right out of Hollywood: threats to US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, for one, who was apparently stalked by Trump cronies and advised to return home, as the President and his main pointsman and lawyer Rudy Giuliani wished. It is no coincidence that most of the players in the Trump impeachment saga are lawyers by profession, as the political dexterity they are able to orchestrate in manipulating prevalent rules and regulations finally casts the ultimate vote in their favour.
The Indian parliamentary system has the chief executive, the Prime Minister, not directly elected by the people, but elected indirectly by the Houses of Parliament. Hence, his being left out of the impeachment ambit. He could, however, be removed by a no-confidence motion, alright.
Perhaps, our parliamentarians could learn a thing or two from the American system. Seventy per cent of all Americans are baying for more evidence to be produced before the trial. Then again, the country has a jury system for trial in courts and all capable citizens are expected to do jury duty. Those in our military are fortunate in this context as they get opportunities to serve on juries during a court martial. This experience gives one a great sense of fairness in trials and, possibly, is a good system for us to emulate.
The catchwords in modern educated governance are transparency and fairness. In the American system, their forefathers built in safeguards to ensure fairness. Their whistleblower Act protects government servants who blow the whistle on wrongdoings within the establishment. Besides, having their Chief Justice preside over the Senate during an impeachment trial, is another novel idea. They have managed to integrate the judiciary and the legislature in a good manner to provide a check and balance on the executive.
A problem area here in the US is the availing of executive privilege. The President tends to exercise this, as in the case of Trump refusing sub-poenas, in the present case.
Also, the executive tends to invoke national security considerations so as not to divulge information held by intelligence agencies or even routine information from functionaries, such as the Attorney-General of the country.
The argument by the Opposition here is that unless one knows the vulnerabilities, if any, to national security, how does the elected body of representatives protect the people? Cases in point in India, such as the cost factor in the Rafale deal not divulged by the ruling government in Parliament, would need to be seen in this context of the Parliament being supreme even for national security aspects. Even the much-vaunted parliamentary oversight of our national security and intelligence agencies is another matter for consideration by our policymakers.
And last, but definitely not the least, the dangers of foreign meddling in the sovereign electoral processes of any nation cannot be over-emphasised. First, the supposed Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential polls and, later, the supposed involvement of a server located in Ukraine, the $391 million of military aid was sought to be denied to Ukraine, should they not toe the Trump/Giuliani line about ordering an inquiry into Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden and their purported linkages to a Ukrainian energy conglomerate named Burisma.
The Ukrainian story is unfair and manipulative in every which way — a frontline state against Russian dominance is being dealt a raw deal. Someone needs to account for these wrongdoings, in the name of promoting sound democratic norms around the world.
