Article Begins:
The ongoing discussions regarding the potential adoption of a presidential form of government in India, as opposed to the current parliamentary style of democracy inherited from the British colonial rule, are shedding light on conceptual variations between the two. These discussions have recently been prompted by the frequent elections and the resulting administrative and financial burden borne by India.
Understanding the Parliamentary System of Government
The parliamentary system of government operates with two executives: the nominal executive (the head of state e.g. President or Monarch) and the real executive (the head of government such as the Prime Minister). In this setup, while the role of the President is primarily ceremonial, the power lies with the Prime Minister and their cabinet. Countries such as Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and Portugal follow this approach.
The Indian Constitution also provides a parliamentary form of government, both at the central and state levels. The executive is accountable to the legislature for its actions and policies.
Understanding the Presidential System of Government
The presidential system of government differs by having a single executive. For instance, in countries like the USA and South Korea, the President acts as both the head of state and the government. This executive is independent of the legislature concerning their term of office and isn’t responsible to them for their policies or actions.
Arguments Against the Parliamentary System
Critics of the parliamentary system argue that it creates unqualified legislators who seek office in order to wield executive power. Furthermore, it forces governments to focus more on staying in power than governing effectively and encourages defections and horse-trading. It’s been noted that voting preferences can be distorted due to citizens not necessarily knowing which party they wish to support.
Arguments in Favour of the Presidential System
Proponents of the presidential system point to the stability of the executive which doesn’t depend on the fluctuating will of the legislature. The president can appoint cabinet members based on ability, regardless of their electability, providing a more efficient approach to governance. The system also allows parallel structures of presidency and legislature, each monitoring the other to prevent abuse of power.
Concerns with the Presidential System
Detractors of the presidential system argue that it fails to ensure cooperation between lawmakers and administrators which can lead to frequent conflicts and potential deadlocks. Also, the concentration of power in one individual can be dangerous for democracy and lead to autocracy.
Strengths of the Parliamentary System
The parliamentary system allows for diverse representation, ensuring regional representations by selecting candidates from different parts of the country. Moreover, it’s part of the basic structure of the Constitution, so altering it would face legal hurdles. The system prevents authoritarianism by making the executive responsible to the legislature and allows better coordination since the executive is part of the legislature.
Looking Ahead
The focus should be on a system of government whose leaders can concentrate on governance rather than retaining power. The current parliamentary system has been functioning for nearly 70 years and can be reformed to overcome the challenges it poses. A thorough review of the electoral processes is necessary to strengthen democracy. The discussion should include limiting political party expenditure, holding simultaneous elections, declaring results for combinations of booths instead of constituencies, among other aspects.