India should go for the presidential form of democracy

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

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Thanks.

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.

Thanks.

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.