For some obscure reasons the Andhra chief minister, Mr. Chenna Reddy, has revived the controversy over the suitability of the present Constitution and form of government. The Union law minister, Mr. Shiv Shankar, has had to answer questions in the Rajya Sabha outlining the government’s position on this issue. He has said that the government does not think it necessary “at this stage” to consider Mr. Reddy’s suggestion, that it does not subscribe to the theory of a basic structure of the Constitution, and that it is unhappy with the Supreme Court’s decision striking down two sections of the 42nd amendment which gave primacy to directive principles over fundamental rights. These observations are bound to be challenged by those who take the opposite view and so the debate will go on, much of it in the constitutional-legal language. This is legitimate and proper. But basically the issue is political, as all such issues are. It will be decided by the balance of political forces in the country and not by the weight of legal arguments. The Constitution and the interpretation the Supreme Court has placed on the relative status of fundamental rights and directive principles put a certain amount of restraint on the executive but only so long as it is willing to function within those limitations. A strong leader can circumvent, abuse or overthrow the Constitution if he or she is determined enough.
But strong leaders do not go about changing constitutions drastically just to prove that they are strong. They have a purpose. In our context it is not at all clear what Mrs. Gandhi can hope to gain by keeping alive the controversy whether fundamental rights are to have precedence over directive principles or whether the parliamentary form of government adequately meets the country’s requirements. She has just been returned to office. By normal logic her effort should be to create the impression that things are going to be reasonably stable. Indeed, the people have voted for her precisely because she has promised them political stability. Stability does not mean merely that she will be around for another five years. It also means that she will function within the system under which she has been elected and that she can produce results. Our system can become dysfunctional in certain circumstances. But which system is free from that danger? Much depends on the leadership. There is precious little Mrs. Gandhi can conceivably do under a presidential system that she cannot do under the parliamentary one. It will be interesting if she was to ask Mr. Chenna Reddy to spell out the possible advantages of the presidential system for her, given her majority in the Lok Sabha, and her hold on the party and the people! Such distractions may suit him and some others who think that this is the best way to divert attention from their own failures and win her favour. But it cannot benefit her. She has a stake in making things look stable and firmly under control. Continuous talk of amending the Constitution or changing the system creates the impression that she is already finding the going rough.