Presidential v/s Parliamentary Form of Government in India

A presidential system ensures that the president need not bother about losing his/her seat due to opposition from legislators with vested interests. The president will be able to take tough and long lasting decisions and the stability of the government will ensure a stable and vibrant economy with consistent growth in all sectors.

The president's powers and authority will not be misused because of a powerful and independent judiciary.

No system of governance could be free from demerits. The survival of any system depends upon its people. Our main problems are corruption, casteism, lack of accountability on official parts, vote bank policy and similar other factors which must be removed then only we can bring people faith in the system and subsequently their cooperation. It is very important to identify and rectify the different snag existing in organs of our system.

I stand for introducing 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. Lets go ahead with 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.

Presidential system is a good for India. Because India Parliament system.

All leader are corrupted. One person can take the good decision it is good for India. So this is presidential system better than parliamentary government.

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.

As if we want some changes in our life then we have to change our habit, follow ethical values, not involve in corruption etc. After following all the mentioned point we can change our India in next 20 years.

I don't think that Presidential form of government can be helpful for India because India is vast diverse of religious people living together, from Kashmir to Kanyakumari and Gujarat to Assam, have different language, way of living, and thinking.

This is can't be handle by just one or two party so parliamentary form of government is needed to bind together. So presidential form of government will not applicable in populous country like India.

Having a Presidential form of government for certain period as said by Kavya is the need of today in India. This will help to weed out corruption to some extent. When we are not able to control the leaders from such evils, by inviting a Presidential system we can atleast make them to sleep for some period.

I think parliamentary form of government is better as these are participation by people in the decision making process and government by consent. One of the commonly attributed advantages of parliamentary system is that it is faster and easier to pass legislation, as the executive branch is dependent on the direct and indirect support of legislative branch and often includes members of legislature. Thus the executive has a majority of the votes, enabling them to pass legislation. In a parliamentary system, with a collegial executive, power is more divided.

Presidential form of Government is inarguably the need of the hour for India because this form of government does away with this new concept of "proxy head of state" which has been the reason for India's recent woes. Moreover having 100+ parties competing at the national level make the election process complicated and cumbersome rather than offering more choices to voters as is perceived because the major player in Indian politics are just a few parties.

On the other hand the presidential form of elections is a fight between two leaders and the voters have a clear cut idea about whom the are voting for. This leaves no room for last minute change of power and leaves no room for defecation.

I am sure that you don't remember that when we were not free, all Indians participated equally in the fight to get freedom. So our constitution chose the parliamentary system of democracy so that all the ethnic groups, religious groups and the tribal groups have equal rights. If you study the history of democracy then India wa the only country where women didn't had to fight for their voting right.

So when we are living in a free country for which every one of our peers had fought for, why should there be only one person and his/her colleagues with all the powers to run the country. All systems has their demerits. And it is true that the multiparty system in India lead to a lot of politics and corruption but if presidential form of government comes in then there would be a bigger problem. India will be fighting for independence again or each state will be fighting to be free from India. Think about it. Isn't it the political system India responsible for the fact that the country is not disintegrated into smaller countries instead of states?