India should go for the presidential form of democracy

Guys according to me this is not enough to make a one government in a country as to saw our situation at presidential these department corrupt and full of wrong right which totally related to their department. So however we have to make a sub system muss and initially compare or judges, power to control short time notification and able to success on their own field.

Thank you.

I think that parliamentary form is better as we have an advantage of coalition government. India is a large country and one government or the president won't be able to run the country, but if we have two or more government working for the development of our nation then progress is sure. Few more justifications.

1. Coalition form of government checks the monopoly of a single party or person.

2. It gives opportunity to small parties to get their role in center.

3. The decisions taken are in the interests of everyone as they are taken after lots of deliberations. And we should not forget that government is chosen by the people that's what make our country the largest democracy presidential rule indicates dictatorship so it depend upon us what we wanna choose "democracy or dictatorship".

We need democracy with stringent punishments for the convicts and fast track courts to punish them in time. If the rules are strict anyone doing wrong will be afraid of thinking of even doing wring.

Political parties must be made accountable for whatever they write in their manifestos and what they speak during campaigning to woo voters. There must be checks like we have consumer courts which made seller accountable for what he promises.

If a single person is ruling the whole country what is the guarantee that he will be working for the good of the people because power changes mind.

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.

I support parliamentary form of government in India because in this form, opposition parties plays a great role to enhance the working of other party, they highlights wrong dealings of opposition parties through which public get to know what the elected parties are working for their sake. It is well said that if you have your competitors you will perform better to shut your rivalries.

Secondly, single mind which is presidential form of government with no competitor's can't help the country to run to its best specially in a country like India which is a diverse country. Different people from different states with different thoughts only can fulfill the basic needs of the living beings who elect their candidate so that they could fulfill their needs, which is impossible in presidential rule because one person can't be known to every religion, rituals, culture and basic need of citizen to its all forms.

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.

Guys according to me one leader is not enough to handle the whole affairs of the country. Though there is a kind of instability in the present form of government but how can we say that after all the affairs of our our country is given in the hands of that 1 person will he be able to manage the country affairs?

Yes, India should adopt the presidential form of government, because if we see today's scenario, if govt want to bring change of any kind then most of the time gets waste in satisfaction of the opposition and people. Its impossible to make feel our rival political party satisfied with our view.

So the raises their voice in criticism with no reason. Which definitely delays the decision of change and badly impact our growth. If we adopt the presidential form of government, and if we got president with good knowledge then no one can stop our nation's growth for what so over reason.

Thank You.

I don't think an overpopulated country like India should not go for presidential government because:

1) Countries like the United States which has the presidential form of government have adequate resources and the correct personnel in the correct places for one man to rule the entire country but in a backward country like India which has a pot-pouri of uncoordinated services it is not possible to bring into existence and sustain the presidential form of government.

2) Having MP's and MLA's help in better management particularly in times of crisis and riots.

3) It is not possible for one man to know the demands and necessities of the entire country nor visit everywhere in person.

So to conclude I will say that a politically unstable country like India should not imply the presidential form of government.

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.