Points to remember before you participate in this discussion:
|Nishith.N said: (Mar 12, 2017)|
|Presidential form of government is better. There are many corrupted politicians who eats all the money and does nothing for people. If there is a direct control by president then there would be no corruption. This type of government can help to improve country economically and politically.|
|Ankit Kapoor said: (Jan 26, 2017)|
|I think parliamentary form of government is better.|
|Nishtha said: (Jan 26, 2017)|
|I think presidential form of government is better because it fastens up the decision and execution process which ultimately reduces corruption, problems that people face and also ultimately the growth rate.|
|Rita said: (Jan 23, 2017)|
|I think the presidential form of democracy is the worst way of ruling.
Why should a single person be given all the rights its like practicing inequality within a country?
I even think so that there's no use of saying democratic if a country has this form of democracy.
|Abhishek said: (Oct 18, 2016)|
|Cultural plurality is the root cause of discrimination in Indian society, due to which many states wants to be an Independent Nation to maintain the integrity of the country only parliamentary form of government is not suitable. Huge diversity in caste, sex, religion demands to increase power or independent executive but at the same time corruption which is an ace problem in India democracy make us put power over executive ie Legislative. At this time we need a quick decision-making government having the lifespan of fixed 5 years but due to the fact of Regionalism to keep a check or to make them participate in decision making. Hence in India having a vast culture the real need of successful democracy is strong judiciary and having strong laws applicable on every citizen of India.|
|Ritesh said: (Jul 31, 2016)|
|In my opinion, both parliamentary and presidential systems have their own merits and demerits. If we look in the parliamentary system then the best thing is that no one is the boss of the whole system and the decisions are always taken by the group of representatives. So, this is the merit of the parliament system but in the presidential system, all the power is in the hand of the president and he is solely responsible for taking all the decisions and he can take the decisions without any permission or majority and this might lead to dictatorship. Now, you may give the example that America has the presidential form of the government and they are success but I would like to mention a very important point and that is.America is success not because of their government, I think they are success because of their judicial system; they are success because of their law and order system. And history says that presidential forms of democracies have been misused and transformed to dictatorship. For ex: Egypt, Afghanistan, Syria, Russia and many countries. But In a parliamentary form, it is absolutely difficult to transform, though. So, I would like to conclude with this that if we can remove corruption, enforce law and order strictly and hold the government and its officials accountable then parliament form is the best a form of the government.|
|Harsh said: (Jul 27, 2016)|
|I think that parliamentary form of government is better as prevents the prime minister from becoming a dictator. President should always pass the bills according to his opinion along with other people's thought.|
|Uppa Naji said: (Apr 8, 2016)|
|I support a parliamentary form of government because as we can see the political scenario of countries is differ from each other. For Indians, the parliamentary form of govt is better.
Large population, so many tribes, more than thousands of languages spoken by the people, and not only that, religions are also played important roles in the lives of the people.
If the presidential form of govt has enacted within our country then the scenario of the country will automatically change his way.
The most important thing, people will lose his identity as they are controlling by the president and he/she can be from any state.
Loss of culture. Loss of identity!
|Guhan said: (Mar 16, 2016)|
|I stand for introducing a presidential form of government just for a span of 5 to 10 years because presently India is facing many obstacles and riddles in the middle in implementing its policies, This may be because of hierarchy or corruption or whatever. Let's go ahead with a presidential system and check whether we can go ahead successfully in turning out India into a developed country, if not we can disclose our old system into practice.|
|Aditya Kashyap said: (Dec 25, 2015)|
|I think parliamentary government can be proven to be better as it consists of several people from around the country having different concepts as well as different aspects of views. But the fact is our representatives are afraid to raise their voice against the trend of go with the flow.
If some people are making easy money through corruption, then the rest tends to follow these dumb people and becomes bluffer of our own nation. As e can say that politics is not a bad thing its the people make it bad.
|Jinumm said: (Aug 16, 2015)|
|As in the presidential form of government, the president is elected on the basis of direct election. It will be an advantage to all Indians to chose a leader of their choose. The leader will also be obliged to the people then the other ministers.|
|Burhan Qureshi said: (Aug 13, 2015)|
|Hi I am Burhan Qureshi I would like to give you a sneak peak of my mind at these two form of government.
As each one of you know about the quotation by lord Acton that "power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely" which very well defines about the demerits of presidential form of government.
But to my country there is a need of an hour for presidential form of government for five years which could possibly remove the corruption from India at a very large extent farthermost it will make up the minds of all corrupted leaders not to get in rackets which not only insults their self respect but also destroy their vast shadow and then it can be removed returning to latter form.
In India the powers are not centralised but parliamentary form in which the powers are almost distributed so we are not damn sure that prime minister is the real head of India as he can be dismissed by the president by the help of council of ministers.
|Pooja Upadhyay said: (Aug 6, 2015)|
|I think the present system is also working like Presidential rule or dictatorship. Because during election the most powerful authority of present government Prime minister was presented without following the true and democratic procedure. But here I support parliamentary form of government only.|
|Shashank Dixit said: (Jul 28, 2015)|
|As per my opinion parliamentary form of government is good.
As we all know that India is country which have 121 crore people's worth different religions caste language. This why India is known as Sovereign means an independent nation. Socialist implies social and economic equality for all Indian citizens. This guarantees equal opportunity and equal social status. The government attempts to reduce economic inequality by reducing concentration of wealth.
Secular implies freedom to choose your religion. The state gives every citizen the right to practice and propagate a religion of his choice, and also right to reject all religions. The state treats all religions as equal and there is no official state religion. Democratic means the government is a democratically elected, head of the government (Prime Minister) is elected by the people.
So its not easy for a single person to handle such a population of various caste there must be a person from them who understand them & from them which is democracy i.e. from the people by the people for the people. If there was a single person lets take its from Odisha & taking decision particular points & that's create problem I have an example regarding this.
THERE IS AN INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING WHICH HAS ALMOST ALL BRANCH FOR STUDY BUT ONLY & ONLY A DIRECTOR WHICH IS MBA.
|Shivam said: (Jul 8, 2015)|
|In my opinion both parliamentary and presidential government are good but that depends upon the state in which it has to be enacted.
Talking about India we have diversity of religion culture, different peoples and different classes. Parliamentary government distributes the power among the political parties in different states. Thus this makes possible to put forward the issues of respective religion/classes by their respective representative.
In country like India president alone can not sort out the problem of each and every state/peoples because there are also many works to do besides that like foreign relation maintenance etc.
But least we can do is to make mixed government just like France keeping both president as well as prime minister in power. This can really help India to boost its progress.
This is the best solution I can come with.
|Gowtham Kishore said: (Jul 7, 2015)|
|I feel parliamentary form of government is better than presidential form of government because we here that most of the ministers are corrupted most of the people misuse powers. It is better than presidential form form because in presidential form even one and only president is corrupted it would become difficult for a country to run properly.
Moreover in parliamentary form a party which is said to be corrupted could be dissolved and a better party could be chosen. Hence all the religions castes culture can be treated equally. Finally according to me parliamentary form of government is better not the best because each government has its own merits and demerits.
|Nisha said: (Jul 3, 2015)|
|I think, India should adopt some features of presidential form, like France which had been successfully working under a mixed form, the prime minister would continue to head the domestic policies while president can be responsible for the foreign policies and both of the two executives can can act as an effective check on one another.
An a system of dual executive, both having their power from the people is more democratic than having a prime minister who influences and wields a huge power or a president who is the sole executive power like that in USA. According to me a mixed form would be the most effective system in India context.
|Sagar Kabugade said: (Jun 26, 2015)|
|I strongly recommend presidential form of government. As we can see many drawbacks in parliamentary form of government.
We don't get quality leaders to govern our country. We can experience that if any candidate who's opting for any job specially any government job then it is clearly mentioned in the application form that there should not be any criminal charges against him, but everyone know's there are many politician's who have criminal charges against them and despite of that they are continuing there terms as ministers.
My point is that when we need no criminal charges against us for getting a any government job. Then why we are careless for them who are going to govern us for complete 5 years.
You all might me knowing that nowadays every newspaper's headlines with some or the other minister's fake qualification degree cases.
There are country's in world where they are governed by president and are most successful in achieving there goals.
|Ayan Chowdhury said: (Jun 17, 2015)|
|Parliamentary form and presidential form both are successfully working. The two forms of government have their own distinctive characteristics & their respective merits and demerits.
In recent times it has been felt that the presidential form is more workable & urgently needed. Here I want to share some points suggesting that presidential form is better than parliamentary form,
1. In the parliamentary system, the pm and the chief ministers are totally dependent upon their respective legislatures in the matter of selection of the ministers. On one hand they are expected to select men of vision. Integrity, ability, professional knowledge and most important-practical experience. Whereas under the presidential system, the president is not hampered by such considerations. He is not tied to or subordinate to the legislature. He is free to choose his cabinet of ministers from outside the members of the legislature.
2. The elected leader of the majority party becomes the PM & then forms the government. Whereas, in presidential form of government, the president is the real head of the executive and is elected directly.
Thus, at the end of the debate, I would like to conclude that presidential for of government is better than the parliamentary form in many aspects which were not possible to mention. Presidential system means- greater stability & sanity in the politics of a country, without any doubt.
|Jigyasa Chitransh said: (Jun 12, 2015)|
|I feel parliamentary form of government is better as though it takes lots of time to decide on a single issue but if for the right decisions little time is invested then it is totally worthy of it where it is not so in presidential system.|
|Kartikeya Gulati said: (Jun 11, 2015)|
|India is better with parliament form of government because India have seen many corrupt politician therefore India will not be able to survive if we see a corrupt president in presidential form of government.
If a government is not working properly in parliament then the government is dissolved and a new government is formed but is a president is not able to fulfill his duties as president then it will become very difficult for the county to survive as India is very familiar with corruption and crime.
|Satyam Reddy said: (May 26, 2015)|
|I support the government led by president of India. Because in the parliament led by a governments makes decisions slowly and steadily, it makes waste of a time while making the decisions and it difficult go get single party in the power.
Some times the government makes with the number of parties which leads to misuse of power. i.e. if the prime minister wants take any decision, the co alliance parties don't like either the prime minister take back of collapse the government so he need to be convince everybody in house of parliament.
So president rule of form is the best to rule India. When it do India will grow like a tree.
|Ankita said: (May 21, 2015)|
|According to me presidential form of government is best because it avoids the misusing of powers and a country can be run in a better way.|
|Abhijit Ghosh said: (Apr 15, 2015)|
|According to me presidential form of government is better than parliamentary form of government. If, we notice America, they are following presidential form of government. Here president has the supreme power (power is centralized) rather than parliament form of government (power is distributed).
More the distribution of power more is the misuse of power. What actually is happening in India. Today why there is day to day increase in corruption occurring in India. If we see today ministers they make good promises before election but after they win election where are the promises. That is why parliamentary or democratic form of government is the worst form of government.
|Chandu said: (Feb 20, 2015)|
|According to my point of view, presidential form of India is best because no one can misuse their powers. But only thing is we have to choose best one. Everything is happened by human so they should have to be alert when they are choosing person.|
|Hani Chaudhary said: (Feb 13, 2015)|
|Hello every one. My name is Hani Chaudhary.
I will suggest parliamentary form of government is because of following reason:
1. It lowers the work force.
2. More people will be accounted for any cause of action.
3. Parliamentary system distribute the power because bureaucrat headed by the president and legislature system is headed by prime minister of India.
And I will suggest presidential system because of following reason:
1. Presidential system allows fast action on any any issue, so it is less time consuming in compare with parliamentary system.
Thank you every one.
|Rishika said: (Jan 29, 2015)|
|For me the person working is more important it hardly matter that he/she is working in a parliamentary or presidential form of government the thing which is important is that he/she is working for the betterment of country or not. Therefore the system is not at all important.|
|Sonu,Akshay,Samadhan said: (Jan 20, 2015)|
|I think parliamentary form of govt is more better than presidential form of government It work democratically and on that the control of all peoples. They are binding with people and for the work. The parliamentary form control on govt. And if any council of minister is misuse that power, then representative of parliament ask the question to the govt. Due to this it is easy to dismiss the govt. In presidential form of govt, it is difficult to remove the govt. In this 1 man can take all decision sometimes but in Parliamentary which is not allowed.|
|Pawan Kumar said: (Dec 31, 2014)|
|For me both parliamentary and presidential system have their own merits and demerits. If we look in the parliamentary system then the good thing is that there is no one is a single boss of the whole system.
Because the decisions are taken for the country people and that should be taken bay the group of people selected by the people of the country for their rights and religion issue. While on the other side of this is that every time all of them are not agree on the same point every one have their own opinion and they can conflict each other opinion. This may lead delay in some important decisions or may be need to neglect the decision completely.
On the presidential system all the power is in the hand of one person and he is responsible for taking all the decision and he can take decision without any permission or majority. That will remove all the demerits of the previously discussed system. But this system is good for those area where the peoples are of one religion or a large majority of that.
But not for the country like India because there are almost all the religions people and almost 1000 and above casts. Single person will be of single religion or cast may be it is possible that he is very good to take decisions for the country and is above these all things like casts and religions but he can't generate faith in all the religion.
So for me Presidential can be good for the country like USA but not for our country. Yes this system lead delay in the decisions but we can't avoid the importance of involving all in the decision.
|Anshula Soni said: (Dec 29, 2014)|
|I think parliamentary form of government is more better, as every decision is taken collectively by the representatives of the people belonging to different states.|
|Ramya K R said: (Dec 19, 2014)|
|According to me, parliamentary form of govt is good. India is a second largest nation in the world which has different religion, caste so taking decision in group is better than individual. In parliamentary form of government decision have taken through group.
In case of presidential form of govt, all the power is in hand of single person they only took the decision its not good because their is chance of misusing the power. Parliamentary form have taken more time to take decision because different people having different opinion causes reputes but the decision must be firm.
|Mansi said: (Dec 15, 2014)|
|I believe that parliamentary form of government is better than presidential form of government because if we would see in parliamentary form of government all the powers are not in the hands of one person instead of that their is a team to take a collective decision with a majority of many people. But in the presidential form of government the real power is in the hands of only one person.
It may also happen that the decision taken could not be good for everyone and would affect the countrymen. But when a collective decision is taken their is no such chance. Although in such decisions the time is taken but the final result is mostly accepted by all.
|Sithara said: (Oct 23, 2014)|
|I believe parliamentary form of government is good in India. India is country of vast population with different caste, religions and people with varying financial status. A government should be a system with better understanding of the country's problems. A parliamentary form of government holds representatives of different categories of people in our nation.|
|Srujana Venkatesh said: (Sep 25, 2014)|
|I feel that to select for prime minister or for president must keep a test, the top ten persons are eligible in elections. And he/she should not have any criminal record and should be a social worker.
If this is possible what ever the system is good. Here the person is important not the system.
|Avinash said: (Aug 26, 2014)|
|In my point of view parliamentary form is far better than presidential form. If presidential form is opted by Indians than the day is not so far when army try to take over the government like Arab countries.
Unity in diversity is the backbone of India and our country is a combination of 1000 caste and number of religion and their groups. All groups wants their representative in govt to project their minor but so important issues to sort out. In these case presidential form is not successful. Thank for listening me.
|Moumita said: (Aug 22, 2014)|
|I am sure that you don't remember that when we were not free, all Indians participated equally in the fight to get freedom. So our constitution chose the parliamentary system of democracy so that all the ethnic groups, religious groups and the tribal groups have equal rights. If you study the history of democracy then India wa the only country where women didn't had to fight for their voting right.
So when we are living in a free country for which every one of our peers had fought for, why should there be only one person and his/her colleagues with all the powers to run the country. All systems has their demerits. And it is true that the multiparty system in India lead to a lot of politics and corruption but if presidential form of government comes in then there would be a bigger problem. India will be fighting for independence again or each state will be fighting to be free from India. Think about it. Isn't it the political system India responsible for the fact that the country is not disintegrated into smaller countries instead of states?
|Rishabh Agnihotri said: (Aug 15, 2014)|
|Presidential form of Government is inarguably the need of the hour for India because this form of government does away with this new concept of "proxy head of state" which has been the reason for India's recent woes. Moreover having 100+ parties competing at the national level make the election process complicated and cumbersome rather than offering more choices to voters as is perceived because the major player in Indian politics are just a few parties.
On the other hand the presidential form of elections is a fight between two leaders and the voters have a clear cut idea about whom the are voting for. This leaves no room for last minute change of power and leaves no room for defecation.
|Lilly said: (Jul 15, 2014)|
|I think parliamentary form of government is better as these are participation by people in the decision making process and government by consent. One of the commonly attributed advantages of parliamentary system is that it is faster and easier to pass legislation, as the executive branch is dependent on the direct and indirect support of legislative branch and often includes members of legislature. Thus the executive has a majority of the votes, enabling them to pass legislation. In a parliamentary system, with a collegial executive, power is more divided.|
|Ramachandran said: (Jul 3, 2014)|
|Having a Presidential form of government for certain period as said by Kavya is the need of today in India. This will help to weed out corruption to some extent. When we are not able to control the leaders from such evils, by inviting a Presidential system we can atleast make them to sleep for some period.|
|Thakurji Gupta said: (May 23, 2014)|
|As if we want some changes in our life then we have to change our habit, follow ethical values, not involve in corruption etc. After following all the mentioned point we can change our India in next 20 years.
I don't think that Presidential form of government can be helpful for India because India is vast diverse of religious people living together, from Kashmir to Kanyakumari and Gujarat to Assam, have different language, way of living, and thinking.
This is can't be handle by just one or two party so parliamentary form of government is needed to bind together. So presidential form of government will not applicable in populous country like India.
|Rivu Ghatak said: (May 20, 2014)|
|A number of key theoretical differences exist between a presidential and a parliamentary system:
- In a presidential system, the central principle is that the legislative and executive branches of government are separate. This leads to the separate election of president, who is elected to office for a fixed term, and only removable for gross misdemeanor by impeachment and dismissal. In addition he or she does not need to choose cabinet members commanding the support of the legislature. By contrast, in parliamentarianism, the executive branch is led by a council of ministers, headed by a Prime Minister, who are directly accountable to the legislature and often have their background in the legislature (regardless of whether it is called a "parliament", assembly, a "diet", or a "chamber").
- As with the president's set term of office, the legislature also exists for a set term of office and cannot be dissolved ahead of schedule. By contrast, in parliamentary systems, the prime minister need to survive a vote of confidence otherwise a new election must be called. The legislature can typically be dissolved at any stage during its life by the head of state, usually on the advice of either Prime Minister alone, by the Prime Minister and cabinet, or by the cabinet.
- In a presidential system, the president usually has special privileges in the enactment of legislation, namely the possession of a power of veto over legislation of bills, in some cases subject to the power of the legislature by weighted majority to override the veto. The legislature and the president are thus expected to serve as checks and balances on each other's powers.
- Presidential system presidents may also be given a great deal of constitutional authority in the exercise of the office of Commander in Chief, a constitutional title given to most presidents. In addition, the presidential power to receive ambassadors as head of state is usually interpreted as giving the president broad powers to conduct foreign policy. Though semi-presidential systems may reduce a president's power over day to day government affairs, semi-presidential systems commonly give the president power over foreign policy.
Presidential systems also have fewer ideological parties than parliamentary systems. Sometimes in the United States, the policies preferred by the two parties have been very similar (but see also polarization). In the 1950s, during the leadership of Lyndon Johnson, the Senate Democrats included the right-most members of the chamber-Harry Byrdand Strom Thurmond, and the left-most members-Paul Douglas and Herbert Lehman. This pattern does not prevail in Latin American presidential democracies.
Thus Parliamentary form is better than presidential government.
|Smit Shah said: (Apr 19, 2014)|
|Presidential system is a good for India. Because India Parliament system.
All leader are corrupted. One person can take the good decision it is good for India. So this is presidential system better than parliamentary government.
|Kavya Y said: (Apr 15, 2014)|
|I stand for introducing presidential form of government just for a span of 5 to 10 years because presently India is facing many obstacles and riddles in the middle in implementing its policies, This may be because of hierarchy or corruption or whatever. Lets go ahead with presidential system and check whether we can go ahead successfully in turning out India into a developed country, if not we can disclose our old system into practice.|
|Ashwani said: (Apr 14, 2014)|
|No system of governance could be free from demerits. The survival of any system depends upon its people. Our main problems are corruption, casteism, lack of accountability on official parts, vote bank policy and similar other factors which must be removed then only we can bring people faith in the system and subsequently their cooperation. It is very important to identify and rectify the different snag existing in organs of our system.|
|Vaibhav said: (Apr 14, 2014)|
|A presidential system ensures that the president need not bother about losing his/her seat due to opposition from legislators with vested interests. The president will be able to take tough and long lasting decisions and the stability of the government will ensure a stable and vibrant economy with consistent growth in all sectors.
The president's powers and authority will not be misused because of a powerful and independent judiciary.
|Dileep V. Sathe said: (Apr 1, 2014)|
|I am a citizen of India, by birth, and a retired HSC physics / chemistry teacher. I have exercised my franchise of voting in many elections. Therefore my following points will be useful in having a true and able government, which will really take care of the society.
1). First of all, I am against the parliamentary system because it grossly violates the basic principle of democracy " that is - for the people, from the people by the people". As a result, in our country political parties have been mushrooming in the last 66 years, this trend automatically puts an obstacle for having proper governance. On the other hand, these parties make adverse effect on the governance. Therefore I think, we have to adopt the presidential system just like in the USA, only ruling and opposing parties.
2). Secondly, in my opinion, a democratic system cannot survive if its foundation is having *religious* cracks and therefore there should not be any concession based on any *religious factor* in the national and provincial governance. Every rule, law, act etc. In the governance must be based on natural science. As a retired science teacher, let me state one important fact. For Nature, every child by birth is a *Homo sapiens* and Nature records death of a person as death of a Homo sapiens " not as a Hindu or a Muslim or a Christian. And hence I firmly believe that concessions based on *religion* must stopped because they are dangerous for the national integrity.
If these reforms are implemented today, we will have to wait for at least 25 years to see the fruits. But we must do it, if we really want to change the gloomy picture of 50 years.
|Aditya said: (Mar 17, 2014)|
|Hi folks, according to my view for a country like India vesting absolute power in hands of one person can be a risky venture as Lord Acton said" Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". I am not saying that parliamentary system is corruption free.
But if we people of India join together to force our government to apply proper norms and restrictions and work together then we can make this system a success. Lokpal introduced recently if implemented judiciously can prove to be success. We have NOTA option also to use of electoral choice wisely if we don't find any candidate worthy to be selected. So by applying proper rules we can make our democratic system a success.
|Namita said: (Feb 20, 2014)|
|India is anyway suffering from the 'virus' called corruption since years despite of having a parliamentary form of government. So why not take a risk of 5 years and try the presidential form of government? risk are high but there's no harm in taking one!may be that could lead to political stability in an organized way!|
|Dinesh Student Of Kalpna Mam said: (Feb 6, 2014)|
|Hello my self Dinesh we are talking about parliamentary vs presidential I thing presidential system in India is better than parliamentary system because my friend you know that our Indians political system is essential for or our country.|
|Nisha U Raja said: (Feb 2, 2014)|
|In parliamentary form of govt executive is accountable for its every action to legislative but delay in implementing decisions. In presidential form of govt there can be quick progress in implementing decision but it can be turned into anarchy if we allow it in India because executive is not accountable. Better to follow parliamentary form of govt.|
|Dr. Shivaji Bhise said: (Dec 12, 2013)|
|With the experience of more than 60 years of the parliamentary system, the situation is disappointing in every walk, hence even after considering some demerits of the presidential system, it is superior & should be accepted. It will curb the present chaos & corruption to a large extent.|
|Pritam Rajwade said: (Nov 9, 2013)|
|The parliamentary form of government is ideally suited to a democratic set up such as India as against the presidential form adopted by the USA which however according to you is a better form of government. Support your answer with relevant examples and arguments.|
|Kritika said: (Nov 7, 2013)|
|India should have presidential form of government so that it can take quick decisions and perform better in the future. And at the same parliament form of govt is also good because there is choice for the people to choose their leaders.|
|Mohan M Gobal said: (Oct 19, 2013)|
|It is alright to discuss the best form of government over presidential or parliamentary system but now in India's the current situation warrants that for another five year period we need a presidential form of government by electing a party to power which is represented by a strong leader. By doing so India can be brought back to the growth path This will be a real test to decide which form of government is suited for India. At this juncture one should remember in the present system due to corrupt politicians we have seen only dynastic rule.|
|Adnan Shahid said: (Oct 13, 2013)|
|I think parliamentary form of government is better as because US which follows presidential form is ranked 19 th most corrupt country while India is ranked 94 th most corrupt. There are many more such examples. Which can prove this fact.|
|Bholanath said: (Sep 18, 2013)|
|As we all know that INDIA is a democratic country which means people choice, that is "for the people, by the people and of the people. INDIA is the land culture, more then 1000 of religions exist here, different people leave here they have different interest which may create conflict of interest between them. So I think that there should be parliamentary form of government so that every people representative can give their views. Now INDIA has developed a lot in many sectors and more to develop also and this can be done by the people only. We cannot take risk with our country, cannot follow presidential form of government like USA. So according to me there should be parliamentary form of government for in future also.|
|Murtaza Bagwala said: (Sep 3, 2013)|
|India is developing not because of the political system. India is developing in-spite of the political system. With proper and accountable form of governance, India could have by now reached a super power status given the resources and the abilities of the people.
India experimented with parliamentary system of democracy, copied largely from UK. Unfortunately it has not worked for India. India as a nation is deeply divided into several groups with conflicting interests. Indian democracy in practice has not been able to abolish caste system that divides the majority community into groups with conflicting interests despite many laws. Accountability is the major causality in the Indian style of democracy.
The Political parties often give importance to the winning chances based on the group and caste following a candidate has. Even in cabinet formation, caste plays its role, many times in the formation of Cabinet. Caste and communal divide made India into one of the most corrupt nations in the world. Some credible estimates put the annual corruption at 50 Billion dollars.
To fight the twin causes of corruption and caste, may be India need to debate on a presidential form of government on the US model. A strong executive President does not need the support of caste and communal vote banks. He can go ahead with reforms that make the administration more transparent, less corrupt and more account to the citizens and the nation. A powerful and committed, and accountable administration is the need of the hour.
|Razia said: (Aug 31, 2013)|
|I guess its parliament form of government which is better to countries like India because we can not take risk of d future of our country by handover the full authorities to the president. It may lead to anarchy. While in parliamentary form the people of all religions I mean the representatives together have an good ideas and share opinions by discussions about d progress of our incredible INDIA where I believe a strong decision taken in groups never fail and fall "UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL".|
|Aditya Singh said: (Aug 25, 2013)|
|1. In the Parliamentary form of government, there are two heads. One is a nominal head while another is the real head. For example, in India, the President is the nominal head while the Prime Minister is the real head. The President of India is the head of state while the Prime Minister is the head of government. But in the Presidential form of government, there is only one head. The President of America is the head of state as well as the head of government.
2. In the Parliamentary system, the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister is responsible to the legislature. But in the Presidential type, the President and his ministers are not responsible to the legislature.
3. In the Parliamentary type, the Council of Ministers will lose office if it loses the vote of confidence / no confidence. But in the Presidential type, the President cannot be ousted from power by a vote of no-confidence. He can be removed from office though impeachment which is much more difficult than the vote of confidence/no confidence.
4. In the Parliamentary system, the government does not enjoy a fixed tenure. "For example, in India the government can stay in power for five years. But any time during this period, the government can be removed from power through a vote of no-confidence. In the Presidential system, the President has generally a fixed tenure because it is not easy to impeach him.
5. There is not strict separation of powers in the Parliamentary type. The ministers are also members of the legislature. But, in the Presidential type, the principle of separation of powers is strictly followed. In the US, the President and his Ministers (Secretaries) are not members of the Congress.
6. In the Parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is not fully free to choose his ministers. He has to choose them from among the members of Parliament. But in the Presidential system, the President enjoys much more freedom in selecting his ministers. He selects them from a much wider field taking into account their experience and expertise.
7. At the time of crisis the Presidential executive is more successful in taking prompt and bold decisions than the Parliamentary government.
8. The Presidential system of government provides more political stability than the Parliamentary form of government.
9. As the government in the parliamentary system is responsible to the Parliament, it is more democratic and respectful of public opinion than the Presidential executive which is not responsible to the legislature.
|Hemlata Palaria said: (Aug 23, 2013)|
|India should have the parliamentary form of government because in this system, the Government is responsible to the people through their representatives. However, this is not so in Presidential form of Government.|
|Payal Samar said: (Aug 12, 2013)|
|For a country like India, presidential form of govt is better. It helps to tackle problems like corruption, reduced growth rates etc better. Delayed decision making is a setback for the parliamentary form. For quick and instant decisions like war policies etc, the veto of the president comes handy.|
|Adarsh said: (Aug 2, 2013)|
|I favour parliamentary form of government in India. The presidential system is quite flawed and is not suitable for a country like India which is the second biggest nation in terms of population and whose diversity in terms of language, culture and religion is immense. The presidential system has many demerits such as:
* Encourages a 2-party system which may not represent the interests of all Indians. There is no scope for a third party to ever win.
* Voters would vote for a party based on the personality of the presidential candidate and not on the ideology, which is against the spirit of democracy i.e. the party is bigger than the person.
* President may be from one party, but the government may be from another party with a completely different ideology, which can lead to obstructionism and policy paralysis if there is a clash of views, a phenomenon which should never occur in developing countries, where strong and consensual decisions are a must.
|Shreycool said: (Jun 19, 2013)|
|India needs presidential form of government because during emergencies, the parliament will take a long time to give out a solution due to the number of people present in the parliamentary meeting, but in presidential form of governing, the government can give quick resolutions which can help the nation. Another thing is that presidential government lets you choose the leader directly so that mean your thoughts are being heard, but in parliamentary, you have to choose a few representatives and those few representatives will choose the PM.
Therefore India needs a presidential form of government.
|Pururva Lakkad said: (May 20, 2013)|
|We may say that both systems have merits and demerits. While public opinion has better chance to influence the government's policies and decisions in the Parliamentary system, the Presidential system is more successful in providing political stability. Any system of government will succeed in India if different organs of government work sincerely and follow the rules of the game. Another critical factor in this regard is the awareness and alertness of people.
Even though, both the governments have attractive features necessary for development in India, Parliamentary form of government which is currently prevalent must be carried on. India is a developing country and malfunctioning government may cause it to deteriorate. The current government undoubtedly requires necessary changes but if a new type of government is introduced, the risk of inefficiency will surely hover on India which is not desirable. Many other factors will influence the new government like political and civilian support, requirement efficient leaders, etc. Due to this, currently there are no requirements of any other government in India but Parliamentary government.
|Lakshmibhavani said: (May 14, 2013)|
|Yes India must have parliamentary form of government. Since India has world's 2nd highest population so, presidential form of government is not suitable.|
|Sipra Pradhan said: (May 10, 2013)|
|In my point of view, parliamentary government is best for India. Because India is a democratic country. In presidential government, there is only one person who is the head of the state as well as the government. So, we shouldn't replace the parliamentary government with presidential government.|
|Suresh Kumar said: (May 3, 2013)|
|India need more refined form of government. It need semi presidential government where PM candidate should be declared before election by political parties so that people may guess about their leader. And pm should made more strong so that no MP can give resign without his permission. One can change party only between code of conduct and cabinet minister can be made from parties having more than 28 MPs. We should popularize two party system as it is in USA. 25 percent cabinet minister should be taken from opposition party so that they feel themselves part of government.|
|Roshan Kosuri said: (Jan 28, 2013)|
|I favour the parliamentary form of democracy, through and through. History says that most presidential forms of democracies have been misused and abused to become dictatorship. In a parliamentary form, it is absolutely difficult to transform though. Given the nature of our politicians, presidential form of democracy will be disastrous. Parliament stops that single person from abusing power. Just look at Egypt, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Russia and many many countries. Even though there might be policy paralysis and inaction's, always, and always, a parliamentary system means stability. Presidential system works only when there is less diversity and the people are more homogeneous and speak more or less the same language. It will fail in India. India should essentially remain a parliamentary democracy.|
|Neha Tuli said: (Jan 11, 2013)|
|INDIA is a well known democracy. The Indian constitution is a very strong constitution among all other countries. So instead of practicing any new form of government, efforts should be made to remove the discrepancies of the present form and bring an improvement in it because if we go for presidential form all decisions may go in one hand WHICH MAY NOT LEAD TO FRUITFUL RESULTS.
Instead efforts should be made to remove the discrepancies in the present system like by providing identity and a dignified position to a person according to his work ability and standards. There should be flexible standards made.
|Anuhya Chikkala said: (Dec 29, 2012)|
|Constitution of India provides for a Parliamentary form of government. In doing so it follows the British model of government. Infact, the system of government that operated in India before 1947 was quite similar to the British model of parliamentary government. The members of the Constituent Assembly therefore decided to adopt this form of government for Independent of India. The Constitution of India provides for the organization of parliamentary government both at the central and state levels. All the features of a parliamentary government: Close relationship between the legislature and executive, responsibility of the executive before the legislature, head of the state as the nominal executive, and Prime Minister and the Council of Minister as the real executive, have been adopted in India.|
|Swatee Madhusmita said: (Nov 16, 2012)|
|See friends, I am joining too late. But India is different case. In china, 95% are Hans, more or less they have a kind of same ideology but India as many have said here is multilingual, multicultural country, presidential form cannot be good option, but with the same system if we can hold our government officials accountable to their work, then this system will also work. Why to destroy such unique form of government we are having where the legislative, executive, judicial wings have independent powers.|
|Archana. Singh said: (Nov 8, 2012)|
|According to me parliamentary form is the best form of government. Here everyone has a right to do anything. No person can interface in it. India is one of the most populated country in the world so it is better form to remove the inequalities and poverty against the people.|
|Nishi said: (Sep 24, 2012)|
|What I think is that each of the forms have advantages as well as disadvantages. Although we cannot deny the fact that people of India has always demanded a strong leader to lead them e.g. Mahatma gandhi, bhagat singh and many more leaders. So I think that presidential form of government is better for India provided the power does not goes in wrong hands.|
|Jessie said: (Aug 26, 2012)|
|Parliamentary form of government is the best for India because if presidential form is used all the powers would go in one person's hands and India would no longer be a democratic country. Today the powers of India are situated both in the president's and the prime minister's hands. So we now that our country's head is not one person but two persons with different thinking!!
|Kamna said: (Jul 31, 2012)|
|Its great to have presidential form of government because country needs a dynamic free and fear free leader who can work of his own so presidential would be good.|
|Chloe said: (Jul 30, 2012)|
|Since India is a huge country that is still in the process of developing and that which has tons of religion and caste I believe that a parliamentary system of government is best suited. People are dying for their voices to be heard and grievances can be addressed well only when the leader is more accessible.
A presidential system becomes more inaccessible for the people as there are so many illiterate people in this nation. And in a parliamentary system all the various grievances can be discussed and action can be brought about accordingly by various parties and not just one voice.
|Pratik said: (Jun 30, 2012)|
|India truly needs a presidential form of government. Today, our problems lie in the very roots of parliamentary democracy. For example, the Prime Minister's power is extremely limited because he/she needs the approval from the president and above all the parliament. If the parliament is not happy with the Prime Minister, it has the power to hold the confidence motion. Also, the Prime Minister needs to form a coalition with other regional parties to stay in power, meaning the Prime Mister must keep everyone in his/her coalition happy.
Furthermore, some people in this blog have been criticizing the presidential form of government because too much power is vested in one person and that the Presidential system DOES NOT represent different castes and religions (no representation).
To those who say that presidential system leads to an unequal representation of the people, you are mistaken. Today, the people DOES NOT ELECT the Prime Minister but we the people elect the party. The party then chooses the Prime Minister. Bottom line, the Prime Minister is not held accountable when reelections come or during any elections within the states.
Why do have criminals within the state assemblies and the Parliament? This is the reason. If the criminal runs for office, a rational person would not vote for this criminal. However, like I said before we the people in a parliamentary form of government elect the party, the party then chooses a candidate to hold office regardless of a background check.
India needs a President who can execute power without the thereat from parliament and the party. What I mean by this is that we need a leader who is elected for a fixed term of 5 years.
In conclusion, I agree with some posts that a democracy must represent its people. Perhaps no system in history represents the people more that the parliamentary form of government. However, Indian politicians DO NOT represent the people rather they are in office for their own self-interests. To add insult to injury, our country suffers from illiteracy, which makes it extremely tough for the people to understand and ultimate take charge of the situation.
|Abhik Dutta said: (Jun 27, 2012)|
|It's not the form of government that is important. The main thing that is important is the healthy interaction between the leader and his/her subjects and both should have trust in each other. And in case it doesn't happens the country cannot be developed by changing the form of government, but itself seems to be bombarded and doomed by various problems.|
|Sravya said: (May 10, 2012)|
|In my view parliamentary form of govt is the best because as India is a vast country. Many politicians are required, thereby seeking small responsibility in every politician. And misuse of power can be reduced. But in presidential form of govt power lies in once individual. There by whole authority comes into his hands in taking any sort of decision. Thereby there will be no power ahead to punish him. Leading to disasters. And threats. So"INDIA SUITS TO BE IN PARLIAMENTARY FORM OF GOVERNMENT".|
|Rahul Swarnkar said: (Apr 2, 2012)|
|I don't think any government form will create any impact on peoples in India. We have to make some changes in ourselves. America has a Presidential form of govt. But they are successive not due to the form of govt. They have but because of its judicial system, law and order and almost no corruption. If we can remove corruption, enforce law and order and hold the government and its officials accountable, our system will work. These are the root cause of the problems that we have in this country.|
|Jyoteermoy Dutta said: (Mar 20, 2012)|
|In India there are various religions and casts so parliamentary goverment is not effective in India as England. Now a days due to this type of goverment many regional political powers are rising which is very harmful for the nation of India. I strongly support presidential rule, but there are some conditions like it should be democratic, the president must be elected by the people of india, and a face which is well known to all should be given the power because if the people are aware of the character and the nature of the nominated persons then it would be better to elect the best one.|
|Rhea said: (Mar 9, 2012)|
|DEMERITS OF THE CURRENT PARLIMENTARY SYSYEM:.
1. The electorate through the general elections elect a party to power, but more often than not, the name of person who would become prime minister after being elected to power is not disclosed. Even if it is disclosed very frequently it is changed after being elected to power. The prime minister is invested with several key powers; the electorate should have the right to know his identity.
2. The cabinet ministers, who play an integral role in the functioning and development of the country, are not directly elected by the people. This makes the whole process of voting less democratic in nature. The real power is not in the hands of the people.
3. This un-involvement of the people in the elections also decreases the interest and need of the people to vote, as they do not actually play a definitive role in the formation of the government.
4. Very frequently in India, the government formed is a coalition of parties (E. G. The United Progressive Alliance). In such a system there could be constant frictions between individual parties, due to the difference in ideologies. On account of this there could be stagnation of public work programmes, implementation of policies etc.
5. The concept of vote banks is unfortunately, firmly instilled in the Indian system of a parliamentary democracy. Vote banks are created in different areas and constituencies by different candidates and parties, on the basis of cast, race, religion etc. Corruption and defection too is rampant. A more transparent system is required.
Hence clearly a presidential system is required.
|Viswa said: (Mar 7, 2012)|
|As for my opinion presidential from of government is correct in India. Because in parliamentary government there is distributed powers among the leaders. No one has specific powers to development throw their ways. So it is delay the process towards the light. Our friend said that India is in second place in population but the first one China follows the presidential government and it still development is possible in it.|
|Palak Batra said: (Feb 7, 2012)|
|I guess parliamentary form of government is a better form of government as compared to presidential form as in presidential form of government there is only one person who is the head of the state as well as the government giving so much power in one person's hand can lead to misuse of power. A country like India having vast population needs a mixture of people from different castes and religions to form a government so as to understand each and every group. In parliamentary system every person gets a fair opportunity to represent his/her religion's or caste's problems.|
|Sv Madhusudan said: (Dec 28, 2011)|
|Presidential form of govt is the only way for development of India then parliamentary form. Because in presidential form people elect one person and vest power in his or her hand, not to thousands like parliamentary form which lead to misuse of power. So according to me presidential form is the only way to india's success. Because right person at right place and at right time to act.|
|Sv Madhusudan said: (Nov 27, 2011)|
|People say that presidential form may lead to dictatorship, so parliamentary form is good. I want to say that every problem has its own solution which leads to research. According to my research I concluded with my points that there will be no misuse of power in presidency form which may lead to dictatorship. And they are-.
*no president can hold the office for more than two years term means 10 years.
*if people find that president is going wrong then they may withdraw power by voting.
*if president tries to supress people then people are having right to act and inform supreme court in which court orders military to take action.
So these are the steps to be taken if the president goes tyrant.
|Anusha said: (Nov 21, 2011)|
|India being a democratic country it should have a parliamentary form of government because here good quality of decisions are made.|
|Aastha Tewari said: (Oct 18, 2011)|
|I think in USA we have PRESIDENTIAL DEMOCRACY as the citizens choose their own leader and the leader has the supreme power.|
|Kunal Godhwani said: (Oct 12, 2011)|
|India followed the same structure which was already there in India. In government of India act 1935 India was having a parliamentary form of government which they followed. It was difficult to take new things while forming the constitution so they (members of constituent assembly) preferred the same form of government which was already there in India. And it is very difficut to change the form of government and that too in India.|
|Niki Sharma said: (Aug 22, 2011)|
|Since USA has presidential form of government.
It can also lead to dictatorship. (some possibility)
that is my point of view.
not that presidential from of govt. doesn't have any merits. Like -
- Less of party politics
- They have a fixed tenure
- stability of govt
parliamentary from of govt. too has many demerits.
|Priyank Jain said: (Aug 5, 2011)|
|Ya, my friend, it is true that presidential form of government can bring down the corrupted politicians on the ground and no one can misuse their powers. But in India their are 1000 of casts and religions and their fore while electing the president directly, their will be a lot of contradictions among the people of different religions and this will tend to create a violent environment. But in parliamentary elections people can elect ministers directly and the parliamentary members will elect the superior authority.|
|Fesal Fernandes said: (Jul 26, 2011)|
|As in the presidential form of govt , the president is elected on the basis of direact election. It will be an advantage to all indians to chose a leader of their choise. the leader will also be obliged to the people then the other ministers.
|Ankur said: (May 22, 2011)|
|In USA, being in a presidential form of government, US citizens have never lost their identity. India should immediately switched to presidential form of government if it wants prosperity of the nation as a whole.|
|Subho said: (Dec 29, 2010)|
|That is a very good point Manju but don't you think that the present form of government in India is Parliamentary and it is in no way exemplary.Of course there are 1000 of different religion but hasn't that spawned the problem of reservations in our country.maybe its high time we think over our cultural aspects and personal identities and think about the country. A Presidential rule for about 5 years will at least bring down the corrupt politicians out of power and maybe then a new government can be formed.|
|Manju Tavane said: (Dec 20, 2010)|
|As for me parliamentary form of government should be in India. Actually India is one of the biggest democracy country. Here people want to express their feelings without any objection. So we need Parliamentary type of gvt. In this country having 1000 of religions. , and also it is 2nd biggest nation in population. If presidential is formed here. , all peoples are losses their identity. They work to that president only. What he say they should that thing only.
For example: In Hitler time their people losses their identity and they are slaves for him. There is no their won cultural events for them.
India having 1000 of different religion and different type of festival. If India also followed presidential form human beings losses their identity.
Presidential v/s Parliamentary Form of Government in India
Email : (optional)
» Your comments will be displayed only after manual approval.