NEW DELHI The main power behind India's Hindu nationalist-led government wants the world's largest democracy to switch to a presidential system for better governance. Home Minister Lal Krishna Advani has called for a national debate to decide if India should continue with the Westminster parliamentary model introduced to the country after independence from Britain in 1947. Advani's move has sparked furious protests from the opposition, which suspects the call to be a deep-rooted conspiracy by Hindu nationalists to eventually do away with democracy.

But Advani, a master strategist who is widely considered to be the driving force behind the two-month-old coalition government, refutes the charge. The idea is not to reject the present constitution but to improve it, he told members of his rightist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP, Indian People's Party), which heads the fragile ruling coalition. Although calls for a change to the presidential system have been made several times in the past five decades, it is the first time a leader of one of India's main parties is rooting for the idea.

Any change in the system of governance would, however, require the backing of two-thirds of the Indian Parliament numbers which the nationalists lack by a wide margin. The indian constitution, one of the most exhaustive in the world and framed in 1950, advocates a parliamentary system of governance which many believe is responsible for the present political instability. India with more than 950 million people and 600 million voters has had six minority governments since the 1989 election threw up the first coalition government.

Before that, it saw one-party governments under such powerful Congress leaders as Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi. Advocates of the presidential system argue it suits India better. The critics don't agree. Advani's attempt is to subvert parliamentary democracy, said a spokesman for former prime minister Inder Kumar Gujral's People's Party. It is against the ethos of our country's freedom struggle. It appears (Advani) is under the influence of the American system.

But Advani's call made twice during the past week has already sparked a debate of sorts in the media and political parties. Some believe he is seeking to sidetrack national attention from the failure so far of the Hindu nationalists to provide a stable government despite their election pledge. One reason why the BJP leaders have fallen for the presidential system could be their belief that in a direct contest to the presidency they would be in a far more advantageous position than the leaders of any other party because of their popularity and pan-India appeal, said the Indian Express. The Westminster model may have been found wanting ...

but there is no guarantee the (proposed) system would be foolproof, the newspaper said, adding India's prime minister had more powers than even the U.S. president. Kashmir's chief minister Farooq Abdullah had favoured a presidential system even before India went to the polls last February-March amid signs that a hung parliament was most likely. Constitutional expert Subash Kashyap, however, said the debate proposed by Advani was not very relevant.

It is largely politically motivated, he told AFP. It is a non-issue. In any case both parliamentary and presidential forms of government would be part of the democratic framework. (AFP)