ext_eduso

Respected Sir, I Inda Shyam Singh and Dr Shivani Mishra faculty in Department of social work SP University had presented paper on Title ELearning and Higher Education in India. I would like to request you whether my paper meets your standards or any modifications is required on it. Hereby i am attaching the full paper. Awaiting your favorable reply.

Regards, Inda Shyam Singh Faculty, Department of Social Work, SP UNIVERSITY, Vidhya nagar Gujarat.
@yahoo.com.

Dear author, Your paper (ID: 1670017 Coalition governments and operation of the Indian parliamentary system ), has now been reviewed, and major improvements are required before it can be accepted for publication. Please revise your paper according to the following comments, mark your corrections in Bold Font and upload your revised paper to online system before July 30. [ reviewResult1:

General comment: The paper does not discuss what the title initially suggests: Coalition governments and operation of the Indian parliamentary system. That is to say, the author does not analyse how the Indian parliamentary system works. To accomplish this objective, it would be necessary, for example, to analyse voting patterns in the Parliament or to realize case studies of specific votes. Some empirical research would be welcome to sustain the arguments presented. The opposition between a parliamentary versus presidentialist system, as presented, is too general and simplistic. Also, the logic of the party and legislator behaviour, as suggested in the paper, is contrary to the mainstream literature in political science. That would not be a problem if the author had some empirical research to sustain his arguments.

There is a huge literature on the topics I mentioned above. Contributions from Tsebelis (1991) and Cheibub (2006) are important ones. The author could consider it, if he wishes to continue working in the field. George Tsebelis: "Nested Games: Rational Choice in Comparative Politics".University of California Press (1991: http://www.amazon.com/Nested-Games-ComparativeCalifornia-Political/dp/0520076516/ref=sr_1_2? s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342547352&sr=12&keywords=tsebelis#reader_0520076516). Tsebelis alerts for the risk of disagreement among what the observer/analyst considers a rational (and expected) action and the way the actor behaves.Sometimes political actors seem to make sub-optimal choices (other options seems best for the analyst) but that does not make the actor irrational, maybe he is acting in a setting of strategies which the analyst is not able to reveal a priori. Cheibub, Jose Antonio. (2006) Presidentialism, Parliamentarism and Democracy. Cambridge University Press www.amazon.com/Presidentialism-Parliamentarism-DemocracyCambridge-Comparative/dp/0521834678#reader_0521834678). This is an important contribution on the differences and similarities of the presidentialist and parliamentarian system, especially on how they can have a similar logic of working. The book also deals with questions of party discipline and the motivation of political actors. Specific comments: There are several wrong assumptions in the paper. For example, in the abstract and in other parts of the manuscript the author argues that a coalition government is a specific component of the parliamentary system. This is not true (see Cheibub 2006). Brazil , among other possible examples, has a presidential system and its political system is structured in coalition governments. The consequences of the coalition government to the political projects of the President is a relevant question to be addressed, as well as the role of the political parties in this dynamic. The author says (p. 2) In India parties do not always agree on the correct path for governmental policy. This is not a specific characteristic of India . All over the world, in democratic systems, parties argue about the correct paths for governmental policy.

The author should explain why it is difficult for governments to operate in an environment of disagreements and which strategies the government should utilize to bypass the difficulties. If the author considers the political science rational choice literature on how legislators behave it would make no sense to talk about voting according to their conviction and consequence even if it means going contrary to party positions (p.5). How could coalition governments work if legislators disrespect party leaders orientations? On p. 2 inexplicable, illogical and opportunistic alliances between political parties prompted by temporary benefits has become the order of the day. Once again, what is the evidence presented to sustain this argument? See Tsebelis (1991) for a good argument on this point. p. 3 Who are the proponents of the Presidential model? (p.3) p. 4 Doubts as to the behaviour of the people and the political parties to make the parliamentary system a success were expressed by none other than the Chairman of the constituent Assembly himself ...... Who is he? Name, party? What is the source of the information? p. 4 And, in the Indian context it is the failure of the political parties to come up to the expectations of the Founding Fathers in making the parliamentary scheme a success but not the failure of the system as such? Who are the founding fathers in the Indian case? Why are they important? Which evidences sustain the argument of failure of the political parties?

] The decision for the final acceptance of the paper will depend on your revision. Thank you for submitting paper to journal. Looking forward to your early reply. Best Editorial Assistant Judy Open Journal of Political Science regards.