India should go for the presidential form of democracy

Yes, India should go for presidential elections.

1) A right person should be put to power and it will help the actions to be implemented quickly. Parliamentary form consumes a lot of time.

2) If a developed country like the USA can progress further with the power concentrated in a single hand then why not ours.

3) Today the major problem in India is the formation of a coalition government. With no party in the absolute majority, no decision can be implemented as there is constant opposition from the other.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Presidential democracy is best suited for a country like India. Usually in India the total power is distributed among a huge no of politicians. All the persons in a party may not be honest. If one among the party members done any mistake the whole party supports him as it would bring bad reputation to the whole party. Usually in India a politician spends a lot of money to win in an election its because he is confident when he gets the power he/she could loot the money. Whereas choosing a single honest person is easy then forming a government with a huge body of members.

NO. According to me, India shouldn't go for presidential election. As all we know Indian democracy is unique in all over the world. And through it we known in all over the world so we shouldn't let it go. As acc.

Indian constitution has gives work to PM and rest work given to president. Due to this distribution of powers gives a better path to work accordingly. And in any problems occur in country then PM or PRESIDENT consult to each other and easily solved the matter. While in the case of presidential form of democracy there so is so much burden on president and he or she have to take urgent decision which may some time pay for their decision.

THANK YOU.

In my point of view, India should go for presidential form of democracy. As many of them said, there is no change in our country's development till date. These days we are living for the politicians who rule the government and not for us. People blindly voting for politicians who had been disappointing us again and again for so many years by saying their false promises. This is what happening these many days.

So there must be a change. Decisions of one man will be final and no one can take his authority. Finally, I support for presidential form of democracy for betterment of India.

Hello everyone, as we all know that India is a diverse country. It has a huge population 2nd in the world within a small area. So one person at the center may not be able to cater the needs of all. It is not possible for everybody to move to the one lone person with all his powers in hand's.

That's why parliamentary form of government is adopted in India so that the local leaders like like sarpanches in small villages, MLA's in legislative assembly are more closer to the people living in those areas. People can approach their councilors MLA's directly for any problem complaints and suggestions.

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?