India should go for the presidential form of democracy

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, definitely India should go for a presidential form of government.

Hello everyone,

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.

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.

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.