Presidential v/s Parliamentary Form of Government in India
Points to remember before you participate in this discussion:
- Assume you are one of the members of a real group discussion.
- Take the initiative to participate and contribute your thoughts.
- Contribute your positive thoughts towards providing the solution.
- Post your thoughts here.
Discussion:
98 comments Page 7 of 10.
Nishi said:
1 decade ago
What I think is that each of the forms have advantages as well as disadvantages. Although we cannot deny the fact that people of India has always demanded a strong leader to lead them e.g. Mahatma gandhi, bhagat singh and many more leaders. So I think that presidential form of government is better for India provided the power does not goes in wrong hands.
(12)
Abhik Dutta said:
1 decade ago
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.
(39)
Nisha U Raja said:
1 decade ago
In parliamentary form of govt executive is accountable for its every action to legislative but delay in implementing decisions. In presidential form of govt there can be quick progress in implementing decision but it can be turned into anarchy if we allow it in India because executive is not accountable. Better to follow parliamentary form of govt.
(13)
Arsh tiwari said:
8 years ago
I agree parliamentary because the reason for this is that, unlike the presidential system parliamentary system have a built -in the mechanism that allows for the easy removal of a lousy leader, who can be removed by easily in three legal ways (1) vote of confidence. (2) removal by the party. (3) removal by the hand of the state.
(63)
Namita said:
1 decade ago
India is anyway suffering from the 'virus' called corruption since years despite of having a parliamentary form of government. So why not take a risk of 5 years and try the presidential form of government? risk are high but there's no harm in taking one!may be that could lead to political stability in an organized way!
(18)
Niki Sharma said:
1 decade ago
Since USA has presidential form of government.
It can also lead to dictatorship. (some possibility)
that is my point of view.
not that presidential from of govt. doesn't have any merits. Like -
- Less of party politics
- They have a fixed tenure
- stability of govt
parliamentary from of govt. too has many demerits.
It can also lead to dictatorship. (some possibility)
that is my point of view.
not that presidential from of govt. doesn't have any merits. Like -
- Less of party politics
- They have a fixed tenure
- stability of govt
parliamentary from of govt. too has many demerits.
(27)
Ramachandran said:
1 decade ago
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.
(13)
Payal Samar said:
1 decade ago
For a country like India, presidential form of govt is better. It helps to tackle problems like corruption, reduced growth rates etc better. Delayed decision making is a setback for the parliamentary form. For quick and instant decisions like war policies etc, the veto of the president comes handy.
(43)
Sipra pradhan said:
1 decade ago
In my point of view, parliamentary government is best for India. Because India is a democratic country. In presidential government, there is only one person who is the head of the state as well as the government. So, we shouldn't replace the parliamentary government with presidential government.
(13)
SRUJANA VENKATESH said:
1 decade ago
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.
If this is possible what ever the system is good. Here the person is important not the system.
(23)
Post your thoughts here:
Quick links
Quantitative Aptitude
Verbal (English)
Reasoning
Programming
Interview
Placement Papers