India should go for the presidential form of democracy

After reading all the above mentioned comments I found that majority of my friends go with presidential form of democracy. See, friends India has the biggest constitution in the world. And there is sharp view for every laws that had been crafted. There are also provisions for adding or updating sections according to demand of time.

This is the high time to make some major changes but not in the form of 'presidential form of democracy' but implementing available resources in the best way. "Presidential form of democracy" is the worst solution our country can have. Decision of one man is not worth for a country with worlds biggest population.

The actual root of corruption is avoiding it in our daily life or participating with full effort. Somehow we have grown with a tendency to do our needful by bribing. Second point is most of the citizens ignore the whole election process even at very ground level. We don't try to know about background of the candidates like their education etc.

We should have right to boycott election if majority of us found that parties involved are not good.

As for as, I am concerned that at this point of time country (citizen of India) should think about that in our country more than 30 to 40 % of peoples are not aware and not getting their fundamental right fully.

One of the main reasons are the literacy even they can't take decision in their well being and they are busy in to getting to feed his family. And one more thing that we are going to make more stronger country than western I mean that it would take some time because we have P.M. The great visionary Narendra Modi. And if we talk about the decision then I would say that we should have believe in our government.

This time every developed country are looking towards our country because here we are going to become youth country. Every MNCs are looking towards to us because of our population. We have great market of every product. This is the best time to look forward for economy strengthen, growth rate of every sector which has the major important in GDP.

NOT TO EXPEND THE MONEY IN CHANGING THE DEMOCRACY. WE ARE GOING TO FORM A COUNTRY OF EPITOME FOR OTHERS.

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.

India adopted the Parliamentary form of democracy after getting Independence in 1947 because India had been familiar with its working.

During the days of the British rule. Since then 13 general elections have been held to the Lok Sabha on the basis of universal adult franchise, and barring a few violent incidents during the polls, there has been peaceful transition of authority from one political party to the other.

Moreover, while in a parliamentary democracy, the Executive is responsible to the legislature and therefore, the opposition always keeps it alert. For it "always lives in the shadow of a coming defeat. "As Laski points out, in a Presidential democracy the President does not have to fear any opposition because he is not responsible to the legislature.

It can make him autocratic. Hence Esmein calls the system "autocratic, irresponsible and dangerous". So, would it be advisable for us to hand over the destiny of our vast country with abundant resources and population to the whims and caprices of a dictatorial President?

I think, India should not go for presidential form of government. Because India is one of the most diversity country in the world. Our Constitution makers already who had been thought that only parliamentary form of govt very much suitable for India. They had a best futuristic vision for the country.

So till today Indian constitution is working smoothly because of parliamentary form of government This govt which has much responsibility than political stability but in president form of govt which has most political stability less responsibility. Political stability which may not be development oriented but responsible farm of govt which is always working for people welfare.

Once who they forgotten Their responsibility, people they throw out the govt because ultimate sovereignty lies in people. But in President farm of govt people they can't do as like in parliament government Because presidency farm govt have fix term. So India should always go with parliamentary farm govt otherwise India will not lead another farm of govt.

Is it only to b blamed on the political system of India for the hardships India is going thru? I would say no. Because India being such a diverse country it is not possible for a single person to lookout for the viewpoint of the entire Indian population. Moreover, inspite of having so many leaders and power not residing in the hands of a single person in the Indian democratic system, there so many cases of corruption. So just think about the scenario that will result if the entire power resides in the hands of a single person (Like in the USA presidential system).

What I personally feel is that inspite of crying over for presidential system in India it is more important that the rules and regulations that govern the politicians be modified so that they think twice before doing anything corrupt. Moreover, we, the people need to be smarter while choosing our representatives and this can b only achieved if we spread the light of education to every strata of the society.

We have seen both forms of government in the world and along with that their pros and cons. According to me the way a government works, depends mostly on the attitude of the people and resources and infrastructure present in the country. Having seen our way of working for past 67 years, it is natural to oppose the existing system.

But how can we ensure that if we choose presidential system, we will succeed in our quest. In one way or the other having regular checks on working government is useful, in country like India. Having no check on working of the government seeking the present situation in our country, it is hard to digest, the govt. Will keep up the good work.

Our problems are different from other countries, and to ensure that those problems get addressed on regular basis, there needs to be a system which includes criticism of policies and proper representation of problems. And for that purpose current system is good for our country.

My brothers and sisters, be it the parliamentary or presidential form of democracy, it is after all only a form ; however, substance is more important than form. It is the actual working of democracy that only matters. The United States follows the presidential form of government, our neighbor Pakistan also follows the same system of government, yet the difference is known to all.

Great Britain follows the Parliamentary government like India, unlike the USA, but it can hardly be gainsaid that as far as democratic rights are concerned the people of the USA and the UK can be significantly differentiated.

In India, people are still miles to go to enjoy democracy like those of the two above-mentioned countries. Many even question the efficacy of the western form of democracy in our land, be it parliamentary or presidential! Certain common parameters are essential for both types of government without them both are doomed to fail.

As we know India is a diverse country. It has a huge population 2nd in the world with in the small area. So one person at centre is intractable to manage the whole population. So India should for the parliamentary form of government instead of presidential form of government.

In our parliamentary form of government, we have leaders from village to state like village President, MLA's, Chief Minister. So here it is easier to complain the problems to our leaders. Yet people are facing so many issues. If India go with the Presidential form of government. There will be the chance to increase the problems.

Having MP's, MAL's help in better management particularly in the times of crisis and riots and also it is difficult to go one person every where to necessities and demands of the people.

At the end, I am going to conclude is India should go for the parliamentary form of government rather than presidential form of government.

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.