As discussions on the need to change the dynamics of the Constitutional framework get underway in India and New Zealand, political pundits would find a comparative analysis of the two systems interesting and informative.
While the ‘Anti-Corruption Movement’ in India led by Anna Hazare has demanded the inclusion of the Prime Minister within the ambit of the ‘Jan Lok Pal’ (Citizens Ombudsman Bill), New Zealand prides itself of accountability and transparency, with everyone including the Governor General and the Prime Minister liable for legal action.
The NZ Government has appointed a 12-member Committee to review the Constitution (Indian Newslink, September 1, 2011), The Panel will take into account the Treaty of Waitangi (1840), Bill of Rights (1990) and the Electoral Reform Act (1993).
There are however some basic differences in the constitutional framework of the two countries. New Zealand does not have a written Constitution like Britain and depends largely on conventions and amendments enacted in Parliament. The laws and practices are in consonance with the Magna Carta (1251), Act of Settlement (1701), British Bill of Rights (1688), the New Zealand Constitutional Act (1852) Bill of Rights and the New Zealand Electoral Act.
India has an extensive Constitution, drafted by a Constituent Assembly and enforced on January 26, 1950 as the country declared itself as a Republic. The Constitution has undergone several amendments thereafter to meet the changing needs of the country.
Experts worldwide have since said that the Indian Constitution is one of the ‘most comprehensive guides for running a country.’ They have also paid tributes to the members of the Constituent Assembly, prominent among who were Independent India’s first Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, first Vice-President Dr Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan and prominent lawyer Dr Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar.
Anna’s Movement signals the creation of a ‘Civil Society,’ which some believe would be antithetical to the spirit and structure of the constitution. Unlike the UK (but akin to the US), the judiciary in India has the power to strike down an act of Parliament as unconstitutional and therefore null and void, if in its opinion, a certain law or decision contravenes the interests of the country.
Experts also believe that federal nature of the Constitution, featuring a parliamentary system with an independent judiciary has made India a beacon of democracy.
Despite all the horse trading that goes on from to time and the strength of a Government hanging loosely on the number of heads supporting it, democracy in India has continued to thrive with various checks and balances in place.
The scenario in New Zealand is different. Beginning with a Constitution written by K J Scott in 1962, the country has coped with a number of situations including the political crisis of the 1980s. But the need for a codified Constitution has been pronounced.
