India should go for the presidential form of democracy

India is a large agricultural country with 2nd highest population in the world, also with diverse languages, religions, social customs and traditions. At present time it requires lot of development not only at social political and economic level but also at strong executive and judicial level.

And for all these reasons I prefer parliamentary form of government. If we have peoples representatives at village level who know their custom and language well then I think they represent peoples problem well and also know where development is required and where is the best use of resources which government provide.

And as we know in parliamentary system their are opposition parties which stand and speak up against the wrongdoing polices and work of ruling party. I acknowledge that there are so much loopholes like corruption which slowdown the progress of our nation but we can remove it by stringent laws and by reforming our administrative system.

One among above discuss that we can elect governors in presidential form of government at state level. I appreciate this thought. But its not possible in this large country. Even a single state head like governor can't reach to people problems. It again requires 3 tier system like elections up-to panchayat level.

It is said that Democracy is of the people, for the people, by the people. The word 'people' has been replaced by the politicians. Presidential system may be an alternate to get rid off from the current facing problems. I think now the times have to be come to see some changes in current political system so there are many alternate to change the existing system but we are taking alternate as parliamentary system.

No I don't support at all our nation is large and there are many states and each states has its own uniqueness whether in term of language or cultural. So it not very easy to take decision that benefits the country.

No, India should not go for the Presidential form. India is diversify country in terms of religion, caste, language and geographically. The burden to deliberate, discuss and decide one candidate is huge and pain taking.

India should go for the presidential model. It is not a one man rule we can also elect the governor of each state and mall's as well. So you still have the checks and the same time matters of national importance can be taken care of one man who has been elected by the people directly.

At the state level a directly elected governor can be in charge of the state. Coalition pressures are also not there.

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?

The one and most important aspect of any governing body is to take good decisions. And also, a good decision is almost waste if it doesn't come on time. And I think, we all will agree, whether we support presidential or parliament form government, the decision making in parliamentary form is long. For a developing nation, like India, we don't have much choices when it comes to foreign investments but our decision making process sometimes displeases those investors.

And I am not saying that presidential form of government doesn't have its consequences, but both the forms have demerits of some sorts.

Parliamentary govt is represented by the people of its people. It will not be different in case of presidential and if it will then it will be disastrous. So its wasting time in flogging dead horse. Better we make everyone aware his duties in every sphere of life.

So that we can elect a capable and determined soul for worshiping the deity of democracy which will ultimately lead to growth in every walk of life for every individual reside. But to expect loyalty from other we must read few lines by MAHATMA GANDHI.

I agree with your point, but our country is a developing national we need strength and support for the development of the country. We can adopt presidential system we can trust the candidate and elect the right person in order for the betterment of the country.

I think India should not go for presidential democracy. Though the president is elected by direct vote of public, we can't put our whole country's faith on one leader. If he fails to work for people then there will be no other person on whom we will hope to take system in hand immediately.

As we see current parliamentary system is also not working properly for us, because system is switching between only two political parties. They are getting chance one after another but not doing anything for our nation.

Hence solution is to bring such a party that will show these traditional parties there mistakes.