Points to remember before you participate in this discussion:
|Varun Parkar said: (Aug 21, 2017)|
|India has to have a presidential campaign because.
India is a vast country. We have a lot of states like Karnataka, Maharashtra and much more.
There may be a lot of parties to elect them and there is a fight amongst them to get votes.
And then, on the other hand, there is a presidential election where the people will get to decide.
And the power lies in his hand so that he or she can control the amount of black money.
That is why would like to conclude my speech that.
INDIA WILL HAVE A GOOD F ORM OF GOVERNMENT IF ITWAS PRESIDENTIAL.
|Isha Vyas said: (Mar 21, 2017)|
|In my opinion, India should not jump on to presidential form because India has a wide number of population and to control so much population by only one person doesn't seem good and even may be because of this there would be many differences among people related to caste and religious system. And the most important thing is that now India has made up with parliamentary form and would definitely take a lot of time to get adjusted with presidential form.|
|Aditi said: (Dec 20, 2016)|
|With over 7 decades of Independence and the Constitution promising food for all, shelter for all and education to all, we still have a long way to go. We are still held behind by the shackles of poverty, hunger, illiteracy and unemployment. Is it that the Government isn't taking steps towards it or is it that we Indians still don't understand what is going on around us and that we should take decisions wisely?
It can be termed as a rhetorical question but I believe that the people in power and the ones who desire for the power are in constant fights with each other and disrupt the implementation of any policy decided. Also, most of the department or wings of the Government are handed over to candidates who do not have proper idea or experience in that field. How can one take proper decisions on the education system if he/she is herself not educated enough to take them? There is bound to be flaws in such situations. Rather than adding any value to the nation or state, the ministers or the Government become a burden to the exchequer. And we, the citizens suffer. The dependency of different ministeries with each other also usurps the smooth flow of plans and policies. There is also instability and in continuity in the Government of our nation. Most People take positions of power by cajoling the poor and lower sections of the society, which again accounts for the majority of our nation, and do no work at all. And the backwardness of certain states of our country is a proof to this. I believe we should do away with Parliamentary form of democracy and start with presidential form of Government. The advantages of the latter should be told to people and prepare them for the same and also make them aware of how important it is to elect a person with the right qualities to run the nation.
|Siddharth Singh Rawat said: (Nov 14, 2016)|
|Indian democracy should definitely evolve now and embrace the presidential form of government. I say this because the need of the hour is that we start electing a commander in chief from whom we can demand accountability and doesn't have the excuse of hiding behind his party or blaming the opposition when he or she doesn't come through. The sad reality is that Narendra Modi will not be around forever. And history is witness to the fact that a political leader who holds himself accountable before the people on his own comes around once in a lifetime. The presidential form of government will force the BJP, Congress or any other central political party to put their best man forward (which they find ways and make excuses to avoid) or concede without participating and this will put an end to the Gath Bandhan politics that is destroying and further degrading the level of politics in this country, in the end forcing citizens of this country to make do with things and hence lose faith in the system and also in the political class if anyone ever had or there was any ever.
Moreover, we ought to know upfront who we are trusting our military and national security with as in most cases both at the state and the national level parties do not declare their candidate upfront and god knows we cannot have person like Manmohan Singh as our country's representative and commander-in-chief ever again.
With this, I rest my argument on why I strongly feel about a need for change in the present government structure.
|Rohit Kumar said: (Oct 27, 2016)|
I appreciate your effort and respect your views on this topic but my point of view is that.
As we know India is a large country and 2nd in population. We are also having diversity in culture, religion, custom, tradition and there is unity in diversity due to our policies and laws.
I feel India shouldn't go for the presidential form of democracy due to various reasons.
1. We are diverse country so it's important to have everyone opinion in every decision making so that it won't hurt anyone sentiment.
2. Our democracy is 65 years old almost which is a root and respect of our country too so we shouldn't violate that.
3. In parliamentary form of democracy, there's an opposition party who always raise the issue taken by ruling party which isn't perfect for country and after discussion a right decision is taken place.
So, in conclusion, I would like to say that yes in the presidential form of democracy efficiency in quick decision, eradication of corruption etc increases but it's not suitable for a large country with so much diversity.
|Cheryl said: (Sep 24, 2016)|
|Yes, definitely India should go for a presidential form of government.|
|Adnan Tasli. said: (Sep 14, 2016)|
|The powers must be in the hand of a prime minister who is directly elected and president must have his powers and he too must be elected directly.
So in our country, two rulers will rule and India will obtain success.
|Akambaraswaran said: (Sep 8, 2016)|
|Yes. Why not provide full action power to president up to 7 years? we surely understood the political party based on religion and community and all another way. But there is no proper rise of freedom and democracy is yet to available to every Indian. So for a chance to provide the same to the president of India.|
|Bhoodev P Sharma said: (Aug 17, 2016)|
|Friends, In continuation of my earlier comments on the real meaning of presidential democracy, I suggest all members should read presidentialdemocracy.org. After going through this website I am convinced that this is the only model which can control the present fiasco and corruption in our existing democratic system.|
|Bhoodev P Sharma said: (Aug 3, 2016)|
|Advantages of presidential systems.
Supporters generally claim four basic advantages for presidential systems:
Direct elections "in a presidential system, the president is often elected directly by the people. This makes the president's power more legitimate than that of a leader appointed indirectly. However, this is not a necessary feature of a presidential system. Some presidential states have an indirectly elected head of state.
Separation of powers "a presidential system establishes the presidency and the legislature as two parallel structures. This allows each structure to monitor and check the other, preventing abuses of power.
Speed and decisiveness "a president with strong powers can usually enact changes quickly. However, the separation of powers can also slow the system down.
Stability "a president, by virtue of a fixed term, may provide more stability than a prime minister, who can be dismissed at any time.
|Bhoodev P Sharma said: (Aug 3, 2016)|
|The concept of the Presidential form of democracy:
A presidential system is a system of government where a head of government is also head of state and leads an executive branch that is separate from the legislative branch. The United States, for instance, has a presidential system. The executive is elected and often titled "president" and is not responsible to the legislature and cannot, in normal circumstances, dismiss it. The legislature may have the right, in extreme cases, to dismiss the executive, often through impeachment. However, such dismissals are seen as so rare as not to contradict a central tenet of presidentialism that in normal circumstances using normal means the legislature cannot dismiss the executive.
Presidential systems are numerous and diverse, but the following are generally true:.
The executive can veto legislative acts and, in turn, a supermajority of lawmakers may override the veto.
The president has a fixed term of office. Elections are held at regular times and cannot be triggered by a vote of confidence or other parliamentary procedures. Although in some countries there is an exception, which provides for the removal of a president who is found to have broken a law.
The executive branch is unipersonal. Members of the cabinet serve at the pleasure of the president and must carry out the policies of the executive and legislative branches. Cabinet ministers or executive departmental chiefs are not members of the legislature. However, presidential systems often need the legislative approval of executive nominations to the cabinet, judiciary, and various lower governmental posts. A president generally can direct members of the cabinet, military, or any officer or employee of the executive branch, but cannot direct or dismiss judges.
The president can often pardon or commute sentences of convicted criminals.
|Jageshwar Prasad said: (Jun 13, 2016)|
|First of all, I would say about presidential that means President or the presidency that is the single person. President is selected directly through the public vote. Since India is one of largest democracy country in the world so, democracy should not be converted into presidential form because a single person would not be able to run our country. Due to presidential, no other person would be comparator or opposition of single person government so that they will oppose in the wrong work of government.
Since the presidential government cannot more effective the democracy. Its policies are more effective but do not function well. So, to take good decisions to develop of our Indian society not possible by a single person. The US is presidential but crime is going on faster than India. Since India is not developing country so, for this election should be conducted also for mukhiya, sarpanch, etc.
|Satya said: (Jun 12, 2016)|
|The form of government is not the case here. The problem is our politicians. It doesn't require educational or a character to b a leader here but muscle power and money. So when you don't have the good list of politicians, any form of government would be showing the same results as of now. What requires the most is literacy. Unless people don't understand their rights no form of government would be successful here.
|Nayeem said: (May 16, 2016)|
|I am respecting all of your views on whether India goes through presidential rule or not. I like the presidential rule but I can't expect more than a democratic rule. Presidential policies are most effective over crimes but do not function well. Take the example of America, crimes are going on faster than in India though yet it has the presidential policy. Crimes never can be stopped but we can tackle, thus, we should focus on the person who should have powers.
|Yogesh said: (May 6, 2016)|
|Well, I think in India there are lots of crime, to control crime and implemented rules strictly, there must be a presidential government. You see in our country women not safe when anyone girl gets outside of her house, she is never safe on the way someone rapped with her and when that girl goes to the police station then to write complain, they get lots of time.
There are many things in India which seem that India must be.
Presidential government and about policies its must be change.
|Siddharth said: (May 3, 2016)|
You all have put your valuable points and I agree to that but I would like to add some key points to it.
Changing from democracy to presidential government is a good idea but with a condition that the person who is chosen as the leader should have some education qualification and can withstand any situation he faces with proper decision-making qualities.
|Somashekar Rao G said: (May 3, 2016)|
|Though India being a vast country with diverse cultures it's the people & region along with faith & self-conscious of people, race, gender & what not. It's all been reflected day in day out of our news channels.
So Presidential rule keeping the time & action is the need of hour than beating around the bush like a vast country with diverse cultures etc.
|Saurav Prabhat said: (Apr 17, 2016)|
|Yes, I do think that there should be a presedential form of government in India but at the same time, it is equally important that the man in power should be honest enough towards his works and decisions.
If it would be like that then I strongly believe that India will soon become a developed country. . Anyways, better than a developing country at least. The decision taken by a single mind by a good thinking and without any oppositions is always better.
|Pranshu Mishra said: (Apr 4, 2016)|
|Yes, it should be because the Presidential System will reforms stable government for a long term, and while taking decision its consume less time as well as the majority will be supported.
Because of Democracy, taking a decision it takes too many thoughts and reviews. It's right but decision are taken only for parties faith, not for the nation.
So, parties should be demolished and one party one rule should be established.
|Neha said: (Mar 21, 2016)|
|No, India should not go for presidential elections.
1) India is a vast country with diverse culture. It is necessary for the people from different groups to come together and form a government so that the wishes of the minority doesn't get suppressed.
2) An opposition is necessary to get the right decision implemented which is acceptable to all.
|Divya said: (Mar 21, 2016)|
|Yes, India should go for presidential elections.
1) A right person should be put to power and it will help the actions to be implemented quickly. Parliamentary form consumes a lot of time.
2) If a developed country like the USA can progress further with the power concentrated in a single hand then why not ours.
3) Today the major problem in India is the formation of a coalition government. With no party in the absolute majority, no decision can be implemented as there is constant opposition from the other.
|Manish said: (Mar 20, 2016)|
|I don't think India should go for a presidential form because you can't leave a country with full of diversity in languages, castes, religions in one hand. Since it's not necessarily being a safe hand. But obviously, some major changes must be seen in our political system. As everything in the world changes according to time. During independence, our great leaders make some rule according to that scenario that is 100% correct, but we should think of yourself with time and changes.|
|Abhilash said: (Mar 17, 2016)|
|Yes I support the presidential form of democracy because, it is enough only if one person is good the nation will automatically develop no need of these many politicians. If a developed country is handled by the one person why not ours. If this is formed every common man will get his every right. It is required for a nation to develop swiftly.|
|Shaashwata Audichya said: (Mar 16, 2016)|
|India still is not in the position to become a single leader country as our country is diverse whether in terms language, culture, orientation, still we require the leaders who are well imbibed with the respective part of the country so these leaders will convey the message, the plight of the people or any kind of information etc. That is all running in India quite good.
So there will not be any considerations on the parliamentary form of the govt.
India still requires to be more developed in terms of Defense sector, agriculture sector etc.
Also, One of the merit of the parliamentary form of govt is that it consists both the ruling party and the opposition that will not help in running the country judiciously.
|Sunil said: (Feb 11, 2016)|
|I don't think so India should go for presidential form of democracy because it is not possible with country like India as we know that India is 7th in term of land geography and 2nd in world for his population. So it's very difficult to implement it single person rule will be highly daunting task to handle 125 crore people.
I know that single rule doesn't mean one person rule there will more administrator like governor under president. But if this possible so our veteran who made our constitution they never included federal government in our constitution.
|Giya said: (Jan 19, 2016)|
|India is a large agricultural country with 2nd highest population in the world, also with diverse languages, religions, social customs and traditions. At present time it requires lot of development not only at social political and economic level but also at strong executive and judicial level.
And for all these reasons I prefer parliamentary form of government. If we have peoples representatives at village level who know their custom and language well then I think they represent peoples problem well and also know where development is required and where is the best use of resources which government provide.
And as we know in parliamentary system their are opposition parties which stand and speak up against the wrongdoing polices and work of ruling party. I acknowledge that there are so much loopholes like corruption which slowdown the progress of our nation but we can remove it by stringent laws and by reforming our administrative system.
One among above discuss that we can elect governors in presidential form of government at state level. I appreciate this thought. But its not possible in this large country. Even a single state head like governor can't reach to people problems. It again requires 3 tier system like elections up-to panchayat level.
|Amish Shah said: (Jan 19, 2016)|
|It is said that Democracy is of the people, for the people, by the people. The word 'people' has been replaced by the politicians. Presidential system may be an alternate to get rid off from the current facing problems. I think now the times have to be come to see some changes in current political system so there are many alternate to change the existing system but we are taking alternate as parliamentary system.|
|Yogesh said: (Nov 17, 2015)|
|No I don't support at all our nation is large and there are many states and each states has its own uniqueness whether in term of language or cultural. So it not very easy to take decision that benefits the country.|
|Priyanka said: (Nov 14, 2015)|
|No, India should not go for the Presidential form. India is diversify country in terms of religion, caste, language and geographically. The burden to deliberate, discuss and decide one candidate is huge and pain taking.|
|Lin John said: (Oct 27, 2015)|
|India should go for the presidential model. It is not a one man rule we can also elect the governor of each state and mall's as well. So you still have the checks and the same time matters of national importance can be taken care of one man who has been elected by the people directly.
At the state level a directly elected governor can be in charge of the state. Coalition pressures are also not there.
|Pranali said: (Oct 7, 2015)|
|India adopted the Parliamentary form of democracy after getting Independence in 1947 because India had been familiar with its working.
During the days of the British rule. Since then 13 general elections have been held to the Lok Sabha on the basis of universal adult franchise, and barring a few violent incidents during the polls, there has been peaceful transition of authority from one political party to the other.
Moreover, while in a parliamentary democracy, the Executive is responsible to the legislature and therefore, the opposition always keeps it alert. For it "always lives in the shadow of a coming defeat. "As Laski points out, in a Presidential democracy the President does not have to fear any opposition because he is not responsible to the legislature.
It can make him autocratic. Hence Esmein calls the system "autocratic, irresponsible and dangerous". So, would it be advisable for us to hand over the destiny of our vast country with abundant resources and population to the whims and caprices of a dictatorial President?
|Rohit said: (Sep 11, 2015)|
|The one and most important aspect of any governing body is to take good decisions. And also, a good decision is almost waste if it doesn't come on time. And I think, we all will agree, whether we support presidential or parliament form government, the decision making in parliamentary form is long. For a developing nation, like India, we don't have much choices when it comes to foreign investments but our decision making process sometimes displeases those investors.
And I am not saying that presidential form of government doesn't have its consequences, but both the forms have demerits of some sorts.
|Mohit Vedwan said: (Sep 1, 2015)|
|Parliamentary govt is represented by the people of its people. It will not be different in case of presidential and if it will then it will be disastrous. So its wasting time in flogging dead horse. Better we make everyone aware his duties in every sphere of life.
So that we can elect a capable and determined soul for worshiping the deity of democracy which will ultimately lead to growth in every walk of life for every individual reside. But to expect loyalty from other we must read few lines by MAHATMA GANDHI.
|Neil said: (Aug 29, 2015)|
|I agree with your point, but our country is a developing national we need strength and support for the development of the country. We can adopt presidential system we can trust the candidate and elect the right person in order for the betterment of the country.|
|Sapna said: (Aug 17, 2015)|
|I think India should not go for presidential democracy. Though the president is elected by direct vote of public, we can't put our whole country's faith on one leader. If he fails to work for people then there will be no other person on whom we will hope to take system in hand immediately.
As we see current parliamentary system is also not working properly for us, because system is switching between only two political parties. They are getting chance one after another but not doing anything for our nation.
Hence solution is to bring such a party that will show these traditional parties there mistakes.
|Siva said: (Jul 20, 2015)|
I think parliamentary form of govt is the better for choose putting these large peoples problems into ones hands is not a right thing. One person can't be possible to go each and every individuals. So in my view at every cedar there must be one representative to see the peoples problems.
Even the option is in our hands to choose the correct leader. So that we can convey our problems those members easily. So I finally say that parliamentary form government is the best to choose.
|Hemendra Singh Bhati said: (Jul 13, 2015)|
|After reading all the above mentioned comments I found that majority of my friends go with presidential form of democracy. See, friends India has the biggest constitution in the world. And there is sharp view for every laws that had been crafted. There are also provisions for adding or updating sections according to demand of time.
This is the high time to make some major changes but not in the form of 'presidential form of democracy' but implementing available resources in the best way. "Presidential form of democracy" is the worst solution our country can have. Decision of one man is not worth for a country with worlds biggest population.
The actual root of corruption is avoiding it in our daily life or participating with full effort. Somehow we have grown with a tendency to do our needful by bribing. Second point is most of the citizens ignore the whole election process even at very ground level. We don't try to know about background of the candidates like their education etc.
We should have right to boycott election if majority of us found that parties involved are not good.
|Sudipta Ghosh said: (Jul 7, 2015)|
|Is it only to b blamed on the political system of India for the hardships India is going thru? I would say no. Because India being such a diverse country it is not possible for a single person to lookout for the viewpoint of the entire Indian population. Moreover, inspite of having so many leaders and power not residing in the hands of a single person in the Indian democratic system, there so many cases of corruption. So just think about the scenario that will result if the entire power resides in the hands of a single person (Like in the USA presidential system).
What I personally feel is that inspite of crying over for presidential system in India it is more important that the rules and regulations that govern the politicians be modified so that they think twice before doing anything corrupt. Moreover, we, the people need to be smarter while choosing our representatives and this can b only achieved if we spread the light of education to every strata of the society.
|Jen said: (Jun 15, 2015)|
In my opinion, presidential system won't give the result, what we are actually expecting to be happened. Of course The USA government follows the presidential system, but the laws and the rules they set for the candidates are strictly followed, and rules is rules for everyone who are under that government, and I think that's impossible in our country to be followed, because in the recent days we had seen many judgement that fails in justice.
So if we are getting into the presidential system the rules and regulations should be followed along with some correction in nomination rules. So for now, democratic system is good enough to give the result we are expecting but we people should take part in elections with responsibly, in the sense we should have a clear view regarding his crime report, educational qualification on the candidate before electing he/she.
|Mohit Soni said: (Jun 6, 2015)|
I think parliamentary system is good for our country, because all powers in a single hand may give rise to misuse of powers. People at their level elect their representative like at village level - sarpanch and in cities - MLA, these representative hear the problems of people and provide solution to them. A single person can't hear problems of population of 125 million people. Team work make democracy more better.
|Ramakrishna Akula said: (Jun 4, 2015)|
|India should have direct democracy so that people can decide and not politicians. This is very important as the there is difference between commitment and output of political winners.|
|Sreenivasulu A said: (May 25, 2015)|
|As we know India is a diverse country. It has a huge population 2nd in the world with in the small area. So one person at centre is intractable to manage the whole population. So India should for the parliamentary form of government instead of presidential form of government.
In our parliamentary form of government, we have leaders from village to state like village President, MLA's, Chief Minister. So here it is easier to complain the problems to our leaders. Yet people are facing so many issues. If India go with the Presidential form of government. There will be the chance to increase the problems.
Having MP's, MAL's help in better management particularly in the times of crisis and riots and also it is difficult to go one person every where to necessities and demands of the people.
At the end, I am going to conclude is India should go for the parliamentary form of government rather than presidential form of government.
|Siya said: (May 7, 2015)|
|I think India should go with parliamentary form of government. India with presidential form of government looks like as a school with principal and students only and not having teachers. As the principal can't teach the whole school alone in the same way a single person can't handle a country with such a big population. In our history, we have followed this type of government. Then why that form of government had been changed? Because presidential form of government doesn't work in our country.|
|Ajay Kumar said: (Apr 11, 2015)|
|No, its absently wrong to say that India should go with the presidential form of government since our country is one of of the largest democratic country in the world. And a single person will not be able to handle this huge population rather to have parliamentary form of government.
Basically in such a huge crowd there should be leader at each small level as in villages like Sarpanch and Mukhiya. If every higher office bearer people starts working for the poor and innocent people, then the day is no far when our country shall be counted in the recent developed one.
|Sushant said: (Apr 6, 2015)|
|Hello everyone, as we all know that India is a diverse country. It has a huge population 2nd in the world within a small area. So one person at the center may not be able to cater the needs of all. It is not possible for everybody to move to the one lone person with all his powers in hand's.
That's why parliamentary form of government is adopted in India so that the local leaders like like sarpanches in small villages, MLA's in legislative assembly are more closer to the people living in those areas. People can approach their councilors MLA's directly for any problem complaints and suggestions.
|Chandan Mishra said: (Mar 18, 2015)|
|Guys according to me this is not enough to make a one government in a country as to saw our situation at presidential these department corrupt and full of wrong right which totally related to their department. So however we have to make a sub system muss and initially compare or judges, power to control short time notification and able to success on their own field.
|Harsh said: (Feb 25, 2015)|
|I think that parliamentary form is better as we have an advantage of coalition government. India is a large country and one government or the president won't be able to run the country, but if we have two or more government working for the development of our nation then progress is sure. Few more justifications.
1. Coalition form of government checks the monopoly of a single party or person.
2. It gives opportunity to small parties to get their role in center.
3. The decisions taken are in the interests of everyone as they are taken after lots of deliberations. And we should not forget that government is chosen by the people that's what make our country the largest democracy presidential rule indicates dictatorship so it depend upon us what we wanna choose "democracy or dictatorship".
|Munish Jindal said: (Feb 24, 2015)|
|We need democracy with stringent punishments for the convicts and fast track courts to punish them in time. If the rules are strict anyone doing wrong will be afraid of thinking of even doing wring.
Political parties must be made accountable for whatever they write in their manifestos and what they speak during campaigning to woo voters. There must be checks like we have consumer courts which made seller accountable for what he promises.
If a single person is ruling the whole country what is the guarantee that he will be working for the good of the people because power changes mind.
|Prateek said: (Feb 21, 2015)|
|We have seen both forms of government in the world and along with that their pros and cons. According to me the way a government works, depends mostly on the attitude of the people and resources and infrastructure present in the country. Having seen our way of working for past 67 years, it is natural to oppose the existing system.
But how can we ensure that if we choose presidential system, we will succeed in our quest. In one way or the other having regular checks on working government is useful, in country like India. Having no check on working of the government seeking the present situation in our country, it is hard to digest, the govt. Will keep up the good work.
Our problems are different from other countries, and to ensure that those problems get addressed on regular basis, there needs to be a system which includes criticism of policies and proper representation of problems. And for that purpose current system is good for our country.
|Soumya said: (Feb 11, 2015)|
|I support parliamentary form of government in India because in this form, opposition parties plays a great role to enhance the working of other party, they highlights wrong dealings of opposition parties through which public get to know what the elected parties are working for their sake. It is well said that if you have your competitors you will perform better to shut your rivalries.
Secondly, single mind which is presidential form of government with no competitor's can't help the country to run to its best specially in a country like India which is a diverse country. Different people from different states with different thoughts only can fulfill the basic needs of the living beings who elect their candidate so that they could fulfill their needs, which is impossible in presidential rule because one person can't be known to every religion, rituals, culture and basic need of citizen to its all forms.
|Sks said: (Jan 28, 2015)|
|My brothers and sisters, be it the parliamentary or presidential form of democracy, it is after all only a form ; however, substance is more important than form. It is the actual working of democracy that only matters. The United States follows the presidential form of government, our neighbor Pakistan also follows the same system of government, yet the difference is known to all.
Great Britain follows the Parliamentary government like India, unlike the USA, but it can hardly be gainsaid that as far as democratic rights are concerned the people of the USA and the UK can be significantly differentiated.
In India, people are still miles to go to enjoy democracy like those of the two above-mentioned countries. Many even question the efficacy of the western form of democracy in our land, be it parliamentary or presidential! Certain common parameters are essential for both types of government without them both are doomed to fail.
|Akshat said: (Jan 21, 2015)|
|Guys according to me one leader is not enough to handle the whole affairs of the country. Though there is a kind of instability in the present form of government but how can we say that after all the affairs of our our country is given in the hands of that 1 person will he be able to manage the country affairs?|
|Dipk said: (Jan 21, 2015)|
|Yes, India should adopt the presidential form of government, because if we see today's scenario, if govt want to bring change of any kind then most of the time gets waste in satisfaction of the opposition and people. Its impossible to make feel our rival political party satisfied with our view.
So the raises their voice in criticism with no reason. Which definitely delays the decision of change and badly impact our growth. If we adopt the presidential form of government, and if we got president with good knowledge then no one can stop our nation's growth for what so over reason.
|Debayan said: (Jan 8, 2015)|
|I don't think an overpopulated country like India should not go for presidential government because:
1) Countries like the United States which has the presidential form of government have adequate resources and the correct personnel in the correct places for one man to rule the entire country but in a backward country like India which has a pot-pouri of uncoordinated services it is not possible to bring into existence and sustain the presidential form of government.
2) Having MP's and MLA's help in better management particularly in times of crisis and riots.
3) It is not possible for one man to know the demands and necessities of the entire country nor visit everywhere in person.
So to conclude I will say that a politically unstable country like India should not imply the presidential form of government.
|B.H.Gollar said: (Dec 28, 2014)|
|I think, India should not go for presidential form of government. Because India is one of the most diversity country in the world. Our Constitution makers already who had been thought that only parliamentary form of govt very much suitable for India. They had a best futuristic vision for the country.
So till today Indian constitution is working smoothly because of parliamentary form of government This govt which has much responsibility than political stability but in president form of govt which has most political stability less responsibility. Political stability which may not be development oriented but responsible farm of govt which is always working for people welfare.
Once who they forgotten Their responsibility, people they throw out the govt because ultimate sovereignty lies in people. But in President farm of govt people they can't do as like in parliament government Because presidency farm govt have fix term. So India should always go with parliamentary farm govt otherwise India will not lead another farm of govt.
|Par said: (Dec 23, 2014)|
|I think president government is right since in India people does not gave 100% vote and due to that buy the vote of the people due that government form is not capable of solving the questions of the people. If there is government of president so it is possible to take the decision rather than any political party.|
|Anu said: (Dec 19, 2014)|
It is necessary to have contact with people. So a single person cannot decide all the things for the benefit of our country. They must also get the opinion of the people. If we take a classroom a single person is in charge for the entire class for maintaining the class in good condition. Similarly a single person is chosen as president for maintaining the country in good condition by also consulting with public. So I prefer presidential governance is necessary.
|Lakshmi said: (Dec 17, 2014)|
|In my point of view our P.M is not a literate person but he have lot of experience. He take wonderful decisions for growing youth future. And so many projects are taken by him for our country. Because he thinks to change our country from developing country to developed country. So people are first give a chance think who have capable for that position.
|Godwin said: (Dec 11, 2014)|
|I believe that presidential form governance is not possible in India. When we speak about India we are speaking about a country with different religions, languages and culture. Any political decision taken always tend to have religious or caste clashes.
Also it is not possible for a leader to speak in one language alone for e.g. in Hindi in our country. Because it angers people of non Hindi speaking stated. How can then a single person make decision? Practically speaking in India our modern system is the best.
|Vijay S said: (Dec 8, 2014)|
|In my point of view, India should go for presidential form of democracy. As many of them said, there is no change in our country's development till date. These days we are living for the politicians who rule the government and not for us. People blindly voting for politicians who had been disappointing us again and again for so many years by saying their false promises. This is what happening these many days.
So there must be a change. Decisions of one man will be final and no one can take his authority. Finally, I support for presidential form of democracy for betterment of India.
|Surya said: (Nov 13, 2014)|
|In my view India is better with parliamentary form of democracy, if any state feels the members contesting for the president cannot yield the appropriate development, then the people of the state should be given the right to elect their own head of the state. Whereas in presidential democracy the powers of the state consulates are limited.|
|Naveen said: (Nov 10, 2014)|
|I agree with the statement that "India should go for the presidential form of democracy".
Only one man who is capable of taking our country forward should be there to take the decisions.
India is a democratic country but in the shadow of this democracy how far we have gone?
What we have achieved? Nothing.
And where are we heading? towards corruption.
The condition of India was much better at the time of British rules as compared to present condition. Today we choose leaders of our choice but what we got? nothing more than fake promises and more and more scams and rising corruption.
And rarely if somebody got caught then because of his/her power he got bail and nothing else.
So to stop all this and to take India forward I'd say that,
"India should go for the presidential form of democracy".
|Jug said: (Nov 9, 2014)|
|Looking at the diversity of India, Presidential form is the only solution for quality leaders to enter parliament. That will ensure quality political talent to enter parliament. Our current parliamentary system has failed to let quality talent to reach parliament and had many shortcoming which prevent/discourage/impedes honest/capable talent to reach parliament. The talent sitting in our parliament is by enlarge very average, partly criminal, rarely capable. If we can do this it would revolutionize/accelerate India success story.
Parliamentary system will disconnect the executive from legislature. The root cause of a all corruption. If a member try to reach parliament with the objective of getting an executive seat (ministerial role). A conflict of interest exist there between a parliamentarian/legislature role and a ministerial role.
No elected member should be given right to take a ministerial position. Minister position should be given to qualified individuals with due process of selection, not election. It will ensure quality ministerial talent who have proper experience/knowledge of the subject to take decisions and lead the a specific ministry. Our current parliamentary system has given the nation very average talent at ministerial positions.
Presidential form of system with proper checks, will give us the quality talent for top executive job and quality ministerial talent.
|Sru said: (Nov 7, 2014)|
|No, in my point of view India should not go for presidential system. As India is a democratic country we are known for our parliamentary government. This is a unique, so we should not let it go. Also always one person cannot think broadly. Sometimes he/she has to pay for decisions. Rules should be modified not changed. We can solve this problem by selecting appropriate government.
|Keshav said: (Nov 6, 2014)|
|As for as, I am concerned that at this point of time country (citizen of India) should think about that in our country more than 30 to 40 % of peoples are not aware and not getting their fundamental right fully.
One of the main reasons are the literacy even they can't take decision in their well being and they are busy in to getting to feed his family. And one more thing that we are going to make more stronger country than western I mean that it would take some time because we have P.M. The great visionary Narendra Modi. And if we talk about the decision then I would say that we should have believe in our government.
This time every developed country are looking towards our country because here we are going to become youth country. Every MNCs are looking towards to us because of our population. We have great market of every product. This is the best time to look forward for economy strengthen, growth rate of every sector which has the major important in GDP.
NOT TO EXPEND THE MONEY IN CHANGING THE DEMOCRACY. WE ARE GOING TO FORM A COUNTRY OF EPITOME FOR OTHERS.
|Sumit Sontakke said: (Nov 6, 2014)|
|I respects all the point mentioned above but No, I don't feel that India should accept the "Presidential form of democracy ".
We all should create awareness between the people and proper guidance about how a government should be rather setting a new democracy.
|Sasankmouli said: (Nov 4, 2014)|
|India should go for presidential democracy. The first thing is if an important decision should be made it should be taken immediately for the country but not discussing on it in stages for weeks and then passing it!.
Many decisions India took can be taken years ago ! But every decision is being sent to all 2 lok sabhas and are being dragged for years or months. If we follow this it would take decades for India to develop. In presidential democracy there won't be silly politics!
|Tom Cruise said: (Nov 1, 2014)|
|First of all.
Presidential system exists in USA (UNITED states).
Parliamentary system exists in India (Indian UNION).
Now if we compare the two geographical extents and the polity therein way back in the 18th century, the American revolution (1776-81). The revolution reflects that the people there were aware of their right to life and personal liberty (no taxation without representation) and the awareness that they can form their own government.
Even after independence they formed their 13 independent states with their own militia against the common enemy (British).
And now coming to India during this period the people of Indian geography were busy in conspiracies against each other, non awareness, 4 fold caste system, no liberal ideas no national feeling etc.
The framers of our constitution were well aware of all this; making reservation and other well framed rights and freedoms for WELFARE STATE because it wasn't among.
It will not be wrong to say that Indians are way behind the west the presidential/parliamentary system depends on the background. In fact presidential system is the next stage of parliamentary system.
So far so good PARLIAMENTARY AND NOT PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM IS GOOD FOR US.
|Tanuja said: (Oct 31, 2014)|
|Well, hello friends I only want to say that yes India should go for a presidential democracy because if animals need the directions then why not we, as we are the human beings and we want someone who is able to put a step up according to us and it couldn't be possible without a leader so we want a presenter through presidency.|
|Praveen said: (Oct 26, 2014)|
|In my point of view India should have presidential election because process of giving a country to many dishonoured person its safe to give it to a single person who does good for a nation and it will be easy to identify if he does something wrong to nation. In democratic its very difficult to find where is the mistake occurs. And its very important to whom we give power!
Thank you !
|Kundan said: (Oct 21, 2014)|
|We all know that Indian leader expand much money on campaign. So we have to prefer debit between all the candidate who is willing for the particular position like PM, CM etc and this debate should be shown to all the nation after that each voter share his/her choice on the website of related program and on the basis of the voting they can elect.|
|Ganesh said: (Oct 18, 2014)|
|Yes, it would save a lot of time and money. Reason our democracy is distributed and for this distributed democracy we require more money and time. If we follow presidential government i.e. centralized government. Automatically it will reduce expenditure on election and will save a lot of money.|
|Anil Kumar said: (Oct 2, 2014)|
|NO. According to me, India shouldn't go for presidential election. As all we know Indian democracy is unique in all over the world. And through it we known in all over the world so we shouldn't let it go. As acc.
Indian constitution has gives work to PM and rest work given to president. Due to this distribution of powers gives a better path to work accordingly. And in any problems occur in country then PM or PRESIDENT consult to each other and easily solved the matter. While in the case of presidential form of democracy there so is so much burden on president and he or she have to take urgent decision which may some time pay for their decision.
|Vijay Mandal said: (Sep 30, 2014)|
|No, I do not Support the statement that India should go for the presidential form of democracy, India has a vast population and reside different types of culture and religion. So, power of one person in whole country could not fulfill the understanding Of that particular situation without local MLA & MP.|
|Sunny said: (Sep 27, 2014)|
|Presidential democracy is best suited for a country like India. Usually in India the total power is distributed among a huge no of politicians. All the persons in a party may not be honest. If one among the party members done any mistake the whole party supports him as it would bring bad reputation to the whole party. Usually in India a politician spends a lot of money to win in an election its because he is confident when he gets the power he/she could loot the money. Whereas choosing a single honest person is easy then forming a government with a huge body of members.|
|Divya Sharma said: (Sep 27, 2014)|
|I think democratic form of government is much better than presidential form. Its simply because of the reason why to put all the eggs in a single basket. Why not distributed in different different baskets. So even if one basket falls down the others are there to tackle and do the alternatives.|
|Bindhya said: (Sep 23, 2014)|
|The Exact option for our country is presidential democracy. In India the political party and leaders are ruling the entire country. Always rich people are getting more rich and the poor people getting more poor this only because of the cheap political strategy and manipulations. Now a days there is no way to prevent this. Presidential system is the better and best for our country. It will reduces the entire political dramas. Each and every citizen can decides the best person, who is capable to lead our country. If we want to be a developed nation, it is the only way. Let the next generation may undergo in to a justified system.|
|Suyash said: (Sep 21, 2014)|
1. The main benefit in the presidential form of system is direct voting. It is away from the dirty politics of the party which make alliance at very end time to get majority, or buying of leaders of other party to get majority. Critical mainly when competition is close or party is not getting clear majority.
2. So I think that in parliamentary system main leader is bounded by members of party, sometime members even quit the the party if they are not in favor of leader or their motive can be selfish. So we have to examine the whole party and examine the party of national level is difficult.
3. Any new candidate who is educated, who is generous and want to something for the country have to make party at national level which is very challenging and thus leads to misconception that student and common people should live away from politics.
4. In presidential system we have to examine only one person which is simple and away from shrewd politics of party.
5. Parliamentary system is good when all party member are good and united but there should be some system equivalent to presidential system which give direct opportunity to common people and students to fight some national level or state level elections without spending too much money on media and other corrupt resources etc. This will also not discourage the common people that nothing good will happen for this country and also two independent cross checking system with equal power distribution will do better.
|Bhagyashree said: (Sep 20, 2014)|
|I would say a parliamentary type government should prevail in India. Unlike other countries our county is a democratic country, we have been given rights to elect the most suitable person to be a leader in respective states. So its us who can elect a more suitable person who can bring a change in our country. Election should not be biased with caste, religion or any other aspect. The chosen leader should act towards the well being of the country.|
|Kam said: (Sep 20, 2014)|
I think presidential type of government is good for our country, in presidential democracy at least alliance system is not exist. Alliance system is very dangerous for our country. In presidential system only one person is taking all the decision. Which is good.
|Bharat Jain said: (Sep 10, 2014)|
|The presidential form of democracy provide a better solution for problems because this provide the power to a man and that person usually work in the favor of country, that person not depends on the party or alliances which are presently following in India. The present system in India is also good but candidate selection is the biggest draw back.
So it will be a good decision by choosing presidential system because it will also remove religion difference which are presently promoting in India by different political parties and presidential system is best option for removal of this religion wise contest.
|Sneha said: (Sep 9, 2014)|
My point of view on this topic is that, Indian constitution was set and parliamentary system was adopted after keeping certain points in mind such as diversity in the nation, nature of people in the country, and it is due to this, government could at least run the country till date. If all of a sudden its changed to presidential form, the whole system might collapse because one person cannot think in a broad manner, so, instead of making such a drastic change we should make small and step by step changes. Rules can be modified not changed, selecting appropriate government can be the solution.
|Sai Charan said: (Sep 7, 2014)|
India should adopt for "Presidential Form Of Democracy". Since these many years we are following Parliamentary form of government, but there is no noticeable change in the progress of our country. So like USA, if India could follow presidential form, I expect that there may be tremendous change in the position of our country.
|Sai Kiran said: (Sep 1, 2014)|
|In my view, Parliamentary form of government is best for INDIA. Because, each and every citizen of INDIA has right to vote. But, we are misusing it by voting to persons who belong to our caste or religion and we are not thinking whether they are good candidates or criminals. So, instead of changing the form of government to presidential form, It's better to change our mind and every citizen should know his responsibilities and rights.|
|Thamilarasi Rajendran said: (Aug 22, 2014)|
We are all saying that "we are in a big democratic country" with very proud. But it is not really true. We are just sailing on the boat which is under the control of political parties rather than democracy.
If we have a chance to make the presidential form of governance, we will definitely work towards the growth of our nation. No one can put control on anybody.
Political parties are making rule which are favour for themselves only. A common man can't get anything.
So that I would like to support "INDIA SHOULD GO FOR PRESIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT".
|Raghvendra said: (Aug 17, 2014)|
|I have my favour with presidential form but in India it is not useful because at this time India has so dense populated states which can't be handled by one man with their satisfaction so for India I'll go with parliamentary form although it is not working well except their profit of the party but whatever it is not so worse as will be presidential form if it is in system.|
|Firoz Alam said: (Aug 17, 2014)|
|I am agree with you all my friends but I think we should not see others country perspective, we should create our own example being not having presidential form we can live peacefully. It's all up to us how we manage, because if we don't contribute then form will be helpful until or unless we show extra effort.|
|Chandan Kumar said: (Jul 13, 2014)|
|Hello to everyone; According to present point of views we have well known to our parliamentary system. In this system we have certain aspects to find out the various issues according to vote majority. But the presidential system voted by also ourselves by indirectly ; So I realize some basic points for it.
1. When our System being not going on proper way the main activity take to them presidential part.
2. All aspects of presidential format is visible for the Law system (All levels of courts).
3. Elected by president is well educated and well mannered people. etc.
Lastly I say that the main problem is not that system will not work properly, the matter how we tackle it in proper way.
Thanks to all.
|Navin Amang said: (Jul 7, 2014)|
|A presidential form will be more effective in our country as our polity has less power to execute because most power of a leader goes in formation of government with different parties. People do not get the right person to govern them as selection is indirect in our country. Democratic form also puts some candidates into important ministries which they are not master in. Presidential form will empower leader to choose ministers from people who excel in respective field. Here our leader will not be opposed by MPs and best brains will take care of people. Example, a scholar, researcher and experienced person from Electronics and IT will get Information and broadcasting ministry and not just a elected member having no knowledge of it.|
|Anil said: (Jul 1, 2014)|
|In india, we follow democratic type of government not dictator type which is a part of presidential form of government it can cause civil war in our own country as it happened in sri lanka between sinhalese and tamil. Also people will not have opportunity to select their representatives and therefore which may form can be a corrupt type of government Due to transparency.|
|Pranali said: (Jun 28, 2014)|
|We have eradicated presidential system many decades ago so why to bring it again. Presidential system may again bring to dictatorship in addition to corruption. One person cannot handle such a diverse country.
So rather than changing the system, people should should change their attitude towards country.
|Ankit Pachori said: (Jun 26, 2014)|
|Yes it will be follow in India because regional party make government unstable and reduce the decision making power of government if president system will follow in India then decision making power of government will increase and a blackmailing which is done by regional party will be end.|
|Vikram Mandal said: (Jun 18, 2014)|
|We all till now have tasted the present political system and know that something is needed to be changed or modified for a better future.
What happening is we just put our faith on a leader and select a MP (Sometimes we don't even have our faith in that MP) and now our leader is directly selected by those MP's, now at this instant our role is over and all the decisions are taken by MP's and they now sometimes ask our leader for a special position or benefits for continuing their support and sometimes get sold ! so this system is actually weakening our leader and he can't take good decision rather than he got tangled only in politics.
What if we are able to directly select our leader and then he will setup the system towards development and this is possible if we switch to presidential politics.
|G S N said: (Jun 14, 2014)|
|It does not really matter which form of democracy holds in India. The strength of our nation depends on the leaders who are elected. Instead of changing the system of democracy, it would be better if people stop being selfish and elect someone who would actually work for the country.|
|Zubaida Ali said: (Jun 12, 2014)|
|Guys, I believe that India should have a presidential form of government. The benefit of having a presidential form of government is that, the representative of the people i.e. the president will be chosen by indirect election. This will ensure that he/ she (representative) has a good educational qualification, does not have any criminal record and has to prove his ability before wielding power. Another benefit of having a presidential system is that India will remain free from party politics, which is very active in India.
At this point one may argue that, since is a diversified nation, the representative will not be able to represent the different sections of people. But then, why not? the different sections of people will be represented in the Lower House of the Parliament (Lok Sabha) and the different states of the Indian Union will be represented by the Rajya Sabha (Upper House of the Parliament).
The best example of Presidential system of Government is The USA. Today it is the most prosperous nation of the World. All credit goes to the Presidential System operating in the state.
I firmly adhere to the statement that India should have a Presidential form of government.
|Swati Saxena said: (Jun 1, 2014)|
|Instead of changing the type of democracy in India, it's better that each and every individual should contribute in eradicating corruption from the system. This will require awareness among people and until and unless we will not demand for change none of the system can help solving the problem. Our constitution is the largest in the world and the best part is that there are provisions for amendments. So I'll suggest that please actively take part in the government forming policy because after all it's your own India.|
|Vikram said: (May 23, 2014)|
|I think current form of the democracy is good for india, as mentioned any of my frnd above India is very much diverged country, there should be one leader to lead them.
And moreover India has the biggest constitution and provision to change the laws according to need of time. So its time to change our minds and use the available resources in the best way.
|Vaibhav said: (May 14, 2014)|
|The current format is perfect for present scenario and so for the future. Our P.M. If works as P.M. of republic of India and people identify themselves as citizen then we will have a direct link with the followers and head of the institution. Considering the presidential form, powers in one hand will never be beneficial for the nation (if considered today's scenario) and what type of system the nation needs is already been written in the constitution. And will satisfying those who likes it and for those who thinks of change in the system, its a very long debate.|
|Aneesh said: (May 7, 2014)|
|Somehow, I have come to dislike the word "diversity". We are culturally and religiously diverse, no doubt, but shouldn't we limit our culture and religion to our personal lives and not let it leak out into public life? (will appreciate your views). Moreover, nowadays the word is used by politicians for dividing the society rather than uniting it. We are united because we are all Indians. I strongly advocate for presidential system of government because at least then the executive will be free from legislature. Political interference is the biggest hindrance for policy implementation.
In the present system of government, the buck stops with the prime minister-"one man"-head of the government. I don't remember him favouring a select group of people. We just have to make sure that the president does not do it as well, if at all we get a presidential form of government.
We have to ask ourselves, "do we want an educated and trained executive to run our country's administration, or let a group of educated people supported by a host of uneducated fools, who are bent upon dividing us, run it?".
|Mandar said: (May 5, 2014)|
|Like My other friend's had described upper.
I wanted to tell you is that, I felt very awful when someone said that India is corrupted and it just because of blunt politician, but is that true because that politic member is chosen by us. So just don't blame those lone. Just go through their career graph, and see what he does for us in that year of span, judge them with their good work and if we feel like so then only choose the person and see the difference. I know that person surely will take our country on a top position and we feel proud. That we had selected a Right person.
India should go for the presidential form of democracy
Email : (optional)
» Your comments will be displayed only after manual approval.