Presidential v/s Parliamentary Form of Government in India

A number of key theoretical differences exist between a presidential and a parliamentary system:

- In a presidential system, the central principle is that the legislative and executive branches of government are separate. This leads to the separate election of president, who is elected to office for a fixed term, and only removable for gross misdemeanor by impeachment and dismissal. In addition he or she does not need to choose cabinet members commanding the support of the legislature. By contrast, in parliamentarianism, the executive branch is led by a council of ministers, headed by a Prime Minister, who are directly accountable to the legislature and often have their background in the legislature (regardless of whether it is called a "parliament", assembly, a "diet", or a "chamber").

- As with the president's set term of office, the legislature also exists for a set term of office and cannot be dissolved ahead of schedule. By contrast, in parliamentary systems, the prime minister need to survive a vote of confidence otherwise a new election must be called. The legislature can typically be dissolved at any stage during its life by the head of state, usually on the advice of either Prime Minister alone, by the Prime Minister and cabinet, or by the cabinet.

- In a presidential system, the president usually has special privileges in the enactment of legislation, namely the possession of a power of veto over legislation of bills, in some cases subject to the power of the legislature by weighted majority to override the veto. The legislature and the president are thus expected to serve as checks and balances on each other's powers.

- Presidential system presidents may also be given a great deal of constitutional authority in the exercise of the office of Commander in Chief, a constitutional title given to most presidents. In addition, the presidential power to receive ambassadors as head of state is usually interpreted as giving the president broad powers to conduct foreign policy. Though semi-presidential systems may reduce a president's power over day to day government affairs, semi-presidential systems commonly give the president power over foreign policy.

Presidential systems also have fewer ideological parties than parliamentary systems. Sometimes in the United States, the policies preferred by the two parties have been very similar (but see also polarization). In the 1950s, during the leadership of Lyndon Johnson, the Senate Democrats included the right-most members of the chamber-Harry Byrdand Strom Thurmond, and the left-most members-Paul Douglas and Herbert Lehman. This pattern does not prevail in Latin American presidential democracies.

Thus Parliamentary form is better than presidential government.

1. In the Parliamentary form of government, there are two heads. One is a nominal head while another is the real head. For example, in India, the President is the nominal head while the Prime Minister is the real head. The President of India is the head of state while the Prime Minister is the head of government. But in the Presidential form of government, there is only one head. The President of America is the head of state as well as the head of government.

2. In the Parliamentary system, the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister is responsible to the legislature. But in the Presidential type, the President and his ministers are not responsible to the legislature.

3. In the Parliamentary type, the Council of Ministers will lose office if it loses the vote of confidence / no confidence. But in the Presidential type, the President cannot be ousted from power by a vote of no-confidence. He can be removed from office though impeachment which is much more difficult than the vote of confidence/no confidence.

4. In the Parliamentary system, the government does not enjoy a fixed tenure. "For example, in India the government can stay in power for five years. But any time during this period, the government can be removed from power through a vote of no-confidence. In the Presidential system, the President has generally a fixed tenure because it is not easy to impeach him.

5. There is not strict separation of powers in the Parliamentary type. The ministers are also members of the legislature. But, in the Presidential type, the principle of separation of powers is strictly followed. In the US, the President and his Ministers (Secretaries) are not members of the Congress.

6. In the Parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is not fully free to choose his ministers. He has to choose them from among the members of Parliament. But in the Presidential system, the President enjoys much more freedom in selecting his ministers. He selects them from a much wider field taking into account their experience and expertise.

7. At the time of crisis the Presidential executive is more successful in taking prompt and bold decisions than the Parliamentary government.

8. The Presidential system of government provides more political stability than the Parliamentary form of government.

9. As the government in the parliamentary system is responsible to the Parliament, it is more democratic and respectful of public opinion than the Presidential executive which is not responsible to the legislature.

India truly needs a presidential form of government. Today, our problems lie in the very roots of parliamentary democracy. For example, the Prime Minister's power is extremely limited because he/she needs the approval from the president and above all the parliament. If the parliament is not happy with the Prime Minister, it has the power to hold the confidence motion. Also, the Prime Minister needs to form a coalition with other regional parties to stay in power, meaning the Prime Mister must keep everyone in his/her coalition happy.

Furthermore, some people in this blog have been criticizing the presidential form of government because too much power is vested in one person and that the Presidential system DOES NOT represent different castes and religions (no representation).

To those who say that presidential system leads to an unequal representation of the people, you are mistaken. Today, the people DOES NOT ELECT the Prime Minister but we the people elect the party. The party then chooses the Prime Minister. Bottom line, the Prime Minister is not held accountable when reelections come or during any elections within the states.

Why do have criminals within the state assemblies and the Parliament? This is the reason. If the criminal runs for office, a rational person would not vote for this criminal. However, like I said before we the people in a parliamentary form of government elect the party, the party then chooses a candidate to hold office regardless of a background check.

India needs a President who can execute power without the thereat from parliament and the party. What I mean by this is that we need a leader who is elected for a fixed term of 5 years.

In conclusion, I agree with some posts that a democracy must represent its people. Perhaps no system in history represents the people more that the parliamentary form of government. However, Indian politicians DO NOT represent the people rather they are in office for their own self-interests. To add insult to injury, our country suffers from illiteracy, which makes it extremely tough for the people to understand and ultimate take charge of the situation.

I am a citizen of India, by birth, and a retired HSC physics / chemistry teacher. I have exercised my franchise of voting in many elections. Therefore my following points will be useful in having a true and able government, which will really take care of the society.

1). First of all, I am against the parliamentary system because it grossly violates the basic principle of democracy " that is - for the people, from the people by the people". As a result, in our country political parties have been mushrooming in the last 66 years, this trend automatically puts an obstacle for having proper governance. On the other hand, these parties make adverse effect on the governance. Therefore I think, we have to adopt the presidential system just like in the USA, only ruling and opposing parties.

2). Secondly, in my opinion, a democratic system cannot survive if its foundation is having *religious* cracks and therefore there should not be any concession based on any *religious factor* in the national and provincial governance. Every rule, law, act etc. In the governance must be based on natural science. As a retired science teacher, let me state one important fact. For Nature, every child by birth is a *Homo sapiens* and Nature records death of a person as death of a Homo sapiens " not as a Hindu or a Muslim or a Christian. And hence I firmly believe that concessions based on *religion* must stopped because they are dangerous for the national integrity.

If these reforms are implemented today, we will have to wait for at least 25 years to see the fruits. But we must do it, if we really want to change the gloomy picture of 50 years.

DEMERITS OF THE CURRENT PARLIMENTARY SYSYEM:.

1. The electorate through the general elections elect a party to power, but more often than not, the name of person who would become prime minister after being elected to power is not disclosed. Even if it is disclosed very frequently it is changed after being elected to power. The prime minister is invested with several key powers; the electorate should have the right to know his identity.

2. The cabinet ministers, who play an integral role in the functioning and development of the country, are not directly elected by the people. This makes the whole process of voting less democratic in nature. The real power is not in the hands of the people.

3. This un-involvement of the people in the elections also decreases the interest and need of the people to vote, as they do not actually play a definitive role in the formation of the government.

4. Very frequently in India, the government formed is a coalition of parties (E. G. The United Progressive Alliance). In such a system there could be constant frictions between individual parties, due to the difference in ideologies. On account of this there could be stagnation of public work programmes, implementation of policies etc.

5. The concept of vote banks is unfortunately, firmly instilled in the Indian system of a parliamentary democracy. Vote banks are created in different areas and constituencies by different candidates and parties, on the basis of cast, race, religion etc. Corruption and defection too is rampant. A more transparent system is required.

Hence clearly a presidential system is required.

For me both parliamentary and presidential system have their own merits and demerits. If we look in the parliamentary system then the good thing is that there is no one is a single boss of the whole system.

Because the decisions are taken for the country people and that should be taken bay the group of people selected by the people of the country for their rights and religion issue. While on the other side of this is that every time all of them are not agree on the same point every one have their own opinion and they can conflict each other opinion. This may lead delay in some important decisions or may be need to neglect the decision completely.

On the presidential system all the power is in the hand of one person and he is responsible for taking all the decision and he can take decision without any permission or majority. That will remove all the demerits of the previously discussed system. But this system is good for those area where the peoples are of one religion or a large majority of that.

But not for the country like India because there are almost all the religions people and almost 1000 and above casts. Single person will be of single religion or cast may be it is possible that he is very good to take decisions for the country and is above these all things like casts and religions but he can't generate faith in all the religion.

So for me Presidential can be good for the country like USA but not for our country. Yes this system lead delay in the decisions but we can't avoid the importance of involving all in the decision.

India is developing not because of the political system. India is developing in-spite of the political system. With proper and accountable form of governance, India could have by now reached a super power status given the resources and the abilities of the people.

India experimented with parliamentary system of democracy, copied largely from UK. Unfortunately it has not worked for India. India as a nation is deeply divided into several groups with conflicting interests. Indian democracy in practice has not been able to abolish caste system that divides the majority community into groups with conflicting interests despite many laws. Accountability is the major causality in the Indian style of democracy.

The Political parties often give importance to the winning chances based on the group and caste following a candidate has. Even in cabinet formation, caste plays its role, many times in the formation of Cabinet. Caste and communal divide made India into one of the most corrupt nations in the world. Some credible estimates put the annual corruption at 50 Billion dollars.

To fight the twin causes of corruption and caste, may be India need to debate on a presidential form of government on the US model. A strong executive President does not need the support of caste and communal vote banks. He can go ahead with reforms that make the administration more transparent, less corrupt and more account to the citizens and the nation. A powerful and committed, and accountable administration is the need of the hour.

Parliamentary form and presidential form both are successfully working. The two forms of government have their own distinctive characteristics & their respective merits and demerits.

In recent times it has been felt that the presidential form is more workable & urgently needed. Here I want to share some points suggesting that presidential form is better than parliamentary form,

1. In the parliamentary system, the pm and the chief ministers are totally dependent upon their respective legislatures in the matter of selection of the ministers. On one hand they are expected to select men of vision. Integrity, ability, professional knowledge and most important-practical experience. Whereas under the presidential system, the president is not hampered by such considerations. He is not tied to or subordinate to the legislature. He is free to choose his cabinet of ministers from outside the members of the legislature.

2. The elected leader of the majority party becomes the PM & then forms the government. Whereas, in presidential form of government, the president is the real head of the executive and is elected directly.

Thus, at the end of the debate, I would like to conclude that presidential for of government is better than the parliamentary form in many aspects which were not possible to mention. Presidential system means- greater stability & sanity in the politics of a country, without any doubt.

In my opinion, both parliamentary and presidential systems have their own merits and demerits. If we look in the parliamentary system then the best thing is that no one is the boss of the whole system and the decisions are always taken by the group of representatives. So, this is the merit of the parliament system but in the presidential system, all the power is in the hand of the president and he is solely responsible for taking all the decisions and he can take the decisions without any permission or majority and this might lead to dictatorship. Now, you may give the example that America has the presidential form of the government and they are success but I would like to mention a very important point and that is.America is success not because of their government, I think they are success because of their judicial system; they are success because of their law and order system. And history says that presidential forms of democracies have been misused and transformed to dictatorship. For ex: Egypt, Afghanistan, Syria, Russia and many countries. But In a parliamentary form, it is absolutely difficult to transform, though. So, I would like to conclude with this that if we can remove corruption, enforce law and order strictly and hold the government and its officials accountable then parliament form is the best a form of the government.

As per my opinion parliamentary form of government is good.

As we all know that India is country which have 121 crore people's worth different religions caste language. This why India is known as Sovereign means an independent nation. Socialist implies social and economic equality for all Indian citizens. This guarantees equal opportunity and equal social status. The government attempts to reduce economic inequality by reducing concentration of wealth.

Secular implies freedom to choose your religion. The state gives every citizen the right to practice and propagate a religion of his choice, and also right to reject all religions. The state treats all religions as equal and there is no official state religion. Democratic means the government is a democratically elected, head of the government (Prime Minister) is elected by the people.

So its not easy for a single person to handle such a population of various caste there must be a person from them who understand them & from them which is democracy i.e. from the people by the people for the people. If there was a single person lets take its from Odisha & taking decision particular points & that's create problem I have an example regarding this.

THERE IS AN INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING WHICH HAS ALMOST ALL BRANCH FOR STUDY BUT ONLY & ONLY A DIRECTOR WHICH IS MBA.