Presidential v/s Parliamentary Form of Government in India

In my point of view parliamentary form is far better than presidential form. If presidential form is opted by Indians than the day is not so far when army try to take over the government like Arab countries.

Unity in diversity is the backbone of India and our country is a combination of 1000 caste and number of religion and their groups. All groups wants their representative in govt to project their minor but so important issues to sort out. In these case presidential form is not successful. Thank for listening me.

I feel that to select for prime minister or for president must keep a test, the top ten persons are eligible in elections. And he/she should not have any criminal record and should be a social worker.

If this is possible what ever the system is good. Here the person is important not the system.

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.

I believe that parliamentary form of government is better than presidential form of government because if we would see in parliamentary form of government all the powers are not in the hands of one person instead of that their is a team to take a collective decision with a majority of many people. But in the presidential form of government the real power is in the hands of only one person.

It may also happen that the decision taken could not be good for everyone and would affect the countrymen. But when a collective decision is taken their is no such chance. Although in such decisions the time is taken but the final result is mostly accepted by all.

According to me, parliamentary form of govt is good. India is a second largest nation in the world which has different religion, caste so taking decision in group is better than individual. In parliamentary form of government decision have taken through group.

In case of presidential form of govt, all the power is in hand of single person they only took the decision its not good because their is chance of misusing the power. Parliamentary form have taken more time to take decision because different people having different opinion causes reputes but the decision must be firm.

I think parliamentary form of government is more better, as every decision is taken collectively by the representatives of the people belonging to different states.

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.

I think parliamentary form of govt is more better than presidential form of government It work democratically and on that the control of all peoples. They are binding with people and for the work. The parliamentary form control on govt. And if any council of minister is misuse that power, then representative of parliament ask the question to the govt. Due to this it is easy to dismiss the govt. In presidential form of govt, it is difficult to remove the govt. In this 1 man can take all decision sometimes but in Parliamentary which is not allowed.

For me the person working is more important it hardly matter that he/she is working in a parliamentary or presidential form of government the thing which is important is that he/she is working for the betterment of country or not. Therefore the system is not at all important.

Hello every one. My name is Hani Chaudhary.

I will suggest parliamentary form of government is because of following reason:

1. It lowers the work force.

2. More people will be accounted for any cause of action.

3. Parliamentary system distribute the power because bureaucrat headed by the president and legislature system is headed by prime minister of India.

And I will suggest presidential system because of following reason:

1. Presidential system allows fast action on any any issue, so it is less time consuming in compare with parliamentary system.

Thank you every one.