India should go for the presidential form of democracy

Yes, I do think that there should be a presedential form of government in India but at the same time, it is equally important that the man in power should be honest enough towards his works and decisions.

If it would be like that then I strongly believe that India will soon become a developed country. . Anyways, better than a developing country at least. The decision taken by a single mind by a good thinking and without any oppositions is always better.

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 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.

Like My other friend's had described upper.

I wanted to tell you is that, I felt very awful when someone said that India is corrupted and it just because of blunt politician, but is that true because that politic member is chosen by us. So just don't blame those lone. Just go through their career graph, and see what he does for us in that year of span, judge them with their good work and if we feel like so then only choose the person and see the difference. I know that person surely will take our country on a top position and we feel proud. That we had selected a Right person.

We all till now have tasted the present political system and know that something is needed to be changed or modified for a better future.

What happening is we just put our faith on a leader and select a MP (Sometimes we don't even have our faith in that MP) and now our leader is directly selected by those MP's, now at this instant our role is over and all the decisions are taken by MP's and they now sometimes ask our leader for a special position or benefits for continuing their support and sometimes get sold ! so this system is actually weakening our leader and he can't take good decision rather than he got tangled only in politics.

What if we are able to directly select our leader and then he will setup the system towards development and this is possible if we switch to presidential politics.

Yes it will be follow in India because regional party make government unstable and reduce the decision making power of government if president system will follow in India then decision making power of government will increase and a blackmailing which is done by regional party will be end.

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.

I don't think so India should go for presidential form of democracy because it is not possible with country like India as we know that India is 7th in term of land geography and 2nd in world for his population. So it's very difficult to implement it single person rule will be highly daunting task to handle 125 crore people.

I know that single rule doesn't mean one person rule there will more administrator like governor under president. But if this possible so our veteran who made our constitution they never included federal government in our constitution.

Yes I support the presidential form of democracy because, it is enough only if one person is good the nation will automatically develop no need of these many politicians. If a developed country is handled by the one person why not ours. If this is formed every common man will get his every right. It is required for a nation to develop swiftly.

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.