Presidential v/s Parliamentary Form of Government in India
|
|
|
 |
Points to remember before you participate in this disuccsion:
- Assume, you one of the member of a real group discussion.
- Take the initiative to participate and contribute your thoughts.
- Express your positive attitude towards providing the solution.
|
|
Pururva Lakkad said:
(Mon, May 20, 2013 10:18:13 AM)
|
|
| |
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. |
|
Rate this: +1   -1
|
|
Lakshmibhavani said:
(Tue, May 14, 2013 09:00:59 AM)
|
|
| |
| Yes India must have parliamentary form of government. Since India has world's 2nd highest population so, presidential form of government is not suitable. |
|
Rate this: +0 -3
|
|
Sipra Pradhan said:
(Fri, May 10, 2013 11:39:50 AM)
|
|
| |
| 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. |
|
Rate this: +2 -3
|
|
Suresh Kumar said:
(Fri, May 3, 2013 10:18:59 PM)
|
|
| |
| 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. |
|
Rate this: +0 -3
|
|
Roshan Kosuri said:
(Mon, Jan 28, 2013 10:29:08 PM)
|
|
| |
| 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. |
|
Rate this: +19 -6
|
|
Neha Tuli said:
(Fri, Jan 11, 2013 07:14:06 PM)
|
|
| |
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. |
|
Rate this: +7 -10
|
|
Anuhya Chikkala said:
(Sat, Dec 29, 2012 10:26:58 AM)
|
|
| |
| 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. |
|
Rate this: +4 -8
|
|
Swatee Madhusmita said:
(Fri, Nov 16, 2012 10:41:54 AM)
|
|
| |
| 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. |
|
Rate this: +6 -8
|
|
Archana. Singh said:
(Thu, Nov 8, 2012 10:13:11 PM)
|
|
| |
| 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. |
|
Rate this: +9 -8
|
|
Nishi said:
(Mon, Sep 24, 2012 12:36:49 AM)
|
|
| |
| 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. |
|
Rate this: +6 -21
|
|
Jessie said:
(Sun, Aug 26, 2012 11:20:54 AM)
|
|
| |
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!!
|
|
Rate this: +16 -24
|
|
Kamna said:
(Tue, Jul 31, 2012 08:49:23 AM)
|
|
| |
| 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. |
|
Rate this: +23 -26
|
|
Chloe said:
(Mon, Jul 30, 2012 10:50:44 PM)
|
|
| |
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. |
|
Rate this: +31 -13
|
|
Pratik said:
(Sat, Jun 30, 2012 09:12:24 PM)
|
|
| |
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. |
|
Rate this: +59 -19
|
|
Abhik Dutta said:
(Wed, Jun 27, 2012 11:50:41 PM)
|
|
| |
| 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. |
|
Rate this: +27 -12
|
|
Sravya said:
(Thu, May 10, 2012 10:32:09 PM)
|
|
| |
| 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". |
|
Rate this: +20 -14
|
|
Rahul Swarnkar said:
(Mon, Apr 2, 2012 04:03:29 PM)
|
|
| |
| 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. |
|
Rate this: +50 -9
|
|
Jyoteermoy Dutta said:
(Tue, Mar 20, 2012 09:40:43 AM)
|
|
| |
| 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. |
|
Rate this: +13 -10
|
|
Rhea said:
(Fri, Mar 9, 2012 04:58:01 PM)
|
|
| |
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. |
|
Rate this: +27 -7
|
|
Viswa said:
(Wed, Mar 7, 2012 02:17:55 PM)
|
|
| |
| 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. |
|
Rate this: +6 -17
|
|
Palak Batra said:
(Tue, Feb 7, 2012 06:00:46 PM)
|
|
| |
| 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. |
|
Rate this: +15 -10
|
|
Sv Madhusudan said:
(Wed, Dec 28, 2011 08:19:24 PM)
|
|
| |
| 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. |
|
Rate this: +13 -7
|
|
Sv Madhusudan said:
(Sun, Nov 27, 2011 09:44:41 AM)
|
|
| |
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. |
|
Rate this: +29 -13
|
|
Anusha said:
(Mon, Nov 21, 2011 11:42:49 AM)
|
|
| |
| India being a democratic country it should have a parliamentary form of government because here good quality of decisions are made. |
|
Rate this: +8 -22
|
|
Aastha Tewari said:
(Tue, Oct 18, 2011 09:30:39 PM)
|
|
| |
| I think in USA we have PRESIDENTIAL DEMOCRACY as the citizens choose their own leader and the leader has the supreme power. |
|
Rate this: +9 -13
|
|
Kunal Godhwani said:
(Wed, Oct 12, 2011 02:03:25 PM)
|
|
| |
| 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. |
|
Rate this: +6 -8
|
|
Niki Sharma said:
(Mon, Aug 22, 2011 04:46:12 PM)
|
|
| |
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. |
|
Rate this: +15 -6
|
|
Priyank Jain said:
(Fri, Aug 5, 2011 12:08:42 AM)
|
|
| |
| 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. |
|
Rate this: +18 -12
|
|
Fesal Fernandes said:
(Tue, Jul 26, 2011 09:17:37 PM)
|
|
| |
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.
|
|
Rate this: +6 -12
|
|
Ankur said:
(Sun, May 22, 2011 09:19:23 PM)
|
|
| |
| 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. |
|
Rate this: +5 -22
|
|
Subho said:
(Wed, Dec 29, 2010 06:11:31 AM)
|
|
| |
| 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. |
|
Rate this: +10 -14
|
|
Manju Tavane said:
(Mon, Dec 20, 2010 10:52:10 PM)
|
|
| |
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. |
|
Rate this: +25 -14
|
|
|
