Presidential v/s Parliamentary Form of Government in India

I support a parliamentary form of government because as we can see the political scenario of countries is differ from each other. For Indians, the parliamentary form of govt is better.

Large population, so many tribes, more than thousands of languages spoken by the people, and not only that, religions are also played important roles in the lives of the people.

If the presidential form of govt has enacted within our country then the scenario of the country will automatically change his way.

The most important thing, people will lose his identity as they are controlling by the president and he/she can be from any state.

Loss of culture. Loss of identity!

Thank you.

I stand for introducing a presidential form of government just for a span of 5 to 10 years because presently India is facing many obstacles and riddles in the middle in implementing its policies, This may be because of hierarchy or corruption or whatever. Let's go ahead with a presidential system and check whether we can go ahead successfully in turning out India into a developed country, if not we can disclose our old system into practice.

I think parliamentary government can be proven to be better as it consists of several people from around the country having different concepts as well as different aspects of views. But the fact is our representatives are afraid to raise their voice against the trend of go with the flow.

If some people are making easy money through corruption, then the rest tends to follow these dumb people and becomes bluffer of our own nation. As e can say that politics is not a bad thing its the people make it bad.

As in the presidential form of government, the president is elected on the basis of direct election. It will be an advantage to all Indians to chose a leader of their choose. The leader will also be obliged to the people then the other ministers.

Hi I am Burhan Qureshi I would like to give you a sneak peak of my mind at these two form of government.

As each one of you know about the quotation by lord Acton that "power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely" which very well defines about the demerits of presidential form of government.

But to my country there is a need of an hour for presidential form of government for five years which could possibly remove the corruption from India at a very large extent farthermost it will make up the minds of all corrupted leaders not to get in rackets which not only insults their self respect but also destroy their vast shadow and then it can be removed returning to latter form.

In India the powers are not centralised but parliamentary form in which the powers are almost distributed so we are not damn sure that prime minister is the real head of India as he can be dismissed by the president by the help of council of ministers.

I think the present system is also working like Presidential rule or dictatorship. Because during election the most powerful authority of present government Prime minister was presented without following the true and democratic procedure. But here I support parliamentary form of government only.

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.

In my opinion both parliamentary and presidential government are good but that depends upon the state in which it has to be enacted.

Talking about India we have diversity of religion culture, different peoples and different classes. Parliamentary government distributes the power among the political parties in different states. Thus this makes possible to put forward the issues of respective religion/classes by their respective representative.

In country like India president alone can not sort out the problem of each and every state/peoples because there are also many works to do besides that like foreign relation maintenance etc.

But least we can do is to make mixed government just like France keeping both president as well as prime minister in power. This can really help India to boost its progress.

This is the best solution I can come with.

Thank you.

I feel parliamentary form of government is better than presidential form of government because we here that most of the ministers are corrupted most of the people misuse powers. It is better than presidential form form because in presidential form even one and only president is corrupted it would become difficult for a country to run properly.

Moreover in parliamentary form a party which is said to be corrupted could be dissolved and a better party could be chosen. Hence all the religions castes culture can be treated equally. Finally according to me parliamentary form of government is better not the best because each government has its own merits and demerits.

Thank you.

I think, India should adopt some features of presidential form, like France which had been successfully working under a mixed form, the prime minister would continue to head the domestic policies while president can be responsible for the foreign policies and both of the two executives can can act as an effective check on one another.

An a system of dual executive, both having their power from the people is more democratic than having a prime minister who influences and wields a huge power or a president who is the sole executive power like that in USA. According to me a mixed form would be the most effective system in India context.