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.

Its great to have presidential form of government because country needs a dynamic free and fear free leader who can work of his own so presidential would be good.

We may say that both systems have merits and demerits. While public opinion has better chance to influence the government's policies and decisions in the Parliamentary system, the Presidential system is more successful in providing political stability. Any system of government will succeed in India if different organs of government work sincerely and follow the rules of the game. Another critical factor in this regard is the awareness and alertness of people.

Even though, both the governments have attractive features necessary for development in India, Parliamentary form of government which is currently prevalent must be carried on. India is a developing country and malfunctioning government may cause it to deteriorate. The current government undoubtedly requires necessary changes but if a new type of government is introduced, the risk of inefficiency will surely hover on India which is not desirable. Many other factors will influence the new government like political and civilian support, requirement efficient leaders, etc. Due to this, currently there are no requirements of any other government in India but Parliamentary government.

It's not the form of government that is important. The main thing that is important is the healthy interaction between the leader and his/her subjects and both should have trust in each other. And in case it doesn't happens the country cannot be developed by changing the form of government, but itself seems to be bombarded and doomed by various problems.

First of all, I want to say that India is huge population one man can't do all thing if we want development of every region so there should be a representative of that area so in my point of view Parliament is the best way to represent the actual condition of the different area.

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.

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 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.

India needs presidential form of government because during emergencies, the parliament will take a long time to give out a solution due to the number of people present in the parliamentary meeting, but in presidential form of governing, the government can give quick resolutions which can help the nation. Another thing is that presidential government lets you choose the leader directly so that mean your thoughts are being heard, but in parliamentary, you have to choose a few representatives and those few representatives will choose the PM.

Therefore India needs a presidential form of government.

I believe parliamentary form of government is good in India. India is country of vast population with different caste, religions and people with varying financial status. A government should be a system with better understanding of the country's problems. A parliamentary form of government holds representatives of different categories of people in our nation.