PARLIAMENTARY & PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM

WHY IN NEWS?

Recently, it has been suggested that India should adopt the presidential form of
government instead of the parliamentary style of democracy, inherited from the
British. These suggestions have been given in the backdrop of frequent
elections and related administrative as well as financial burden owned by India.
In this context, it is a good time to evaluate the suitability of the Presidential
system of Government for India.

INTRODUCTION:

In the 21st century, many countries in the world have an organized government.
The parliamentary and presidential form of government is two most famous
kind of governance forms in the world. USA has a presidential form of
government. India has a parliamentary form of government.
There is even a third system of government ‘hybrid system of government’ that
incorporates both parliamentary and presidential system adopted by Mexico,
Turkey, etc. The election process in a country with a presidential form of
government is completely different from the election process in a country with a
parliamentary form of government.

In this study before analyzing whether India should adopt the presidential form
of government or not, we will first learn about the two most famous kinds of
government in the world i.e., Parliamentary and Presidential form.

PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM

The parliamentary system was developed by England and India adopted this
system from the UK with some changes. India chose a parliamentary form of
government primarily because the constitution-makers were greatly influenced
by the system in England.
The Parliamentary system of government refers to “a system of government
having the real executive power vested in a cabinet composed of members of
the legislature who are individually and collectively responsible to the
legislature.” In simple words parliamentary system or parliamentary democracy
means where the executive derives its democratic legitimacy from its ability to
command the confidence of the legislature and is accountable to the legislature.
The head of the state is separate from the head of the government.
The head of the state and the head of the government are held by different
people. The executive and the legislative branches are linked to each other and
Prime Minister is the head of the government. Countries that have a
parliamentary form of government are India, Pakistan, Canada, Denmark and
Bangladesh.

FEATURES OF PARLIAMENTARY FORM OF

GOVERNMENT:

The key features of the Parliamentary System are as follows:

 Close Nexus between the Executive and Legislature: In this form of

government, the Prime Minister along with the Council of Ministers form
the executive and the Parliament is the legislature. The PM and the
ministers are elected from the members of parliament, implying that the
executive emerges out of the legislature.

 Executive responsible to the legislature: The executives have to

perform all those residuary functions of the government which involve
the implementation and administration of various policies & Acts and
orders determined by the legislature and ordered by the judiciary
respectively. In the Parliamentary system, the executive is responsible
and accountable to the legislature for all its actions since it has the right to
seek detailed information about the working of the Ministers. The
Council of Ministers remain in office as long as they enjoy the support
and confidence of the Lok Sabha, i.e., the House of the People.

 Secrecy of the procedure: A prerequisite of this form of government is

that cabinet proceedings are secret and not meant to be divulged to the
public. In fact, even in the oath taken by the Ministers, they promise to
keep faith and secrecy as given in Article 75 of the constitution. As
per Article 74(2) of the Constitution, the advice given by the Council of
Ministers can be inquired in any court of India which ensures secrecy.

 The Leadership of Prime Minister: The leader in the Parliamentary

form of government is the Prime Minister. He is the leader of the majority
 party in Lok Sabha. He is also the head of the government and is selected
through elections held through universal adult franchise.

 No Fixed Tenure: The term of the government depends on its majority

support in the lower house. If the government does not win a vote of no
confidence, the council of ministers has to resign. Elections will be held
and a new government is formed.

 Collective Responsibility: The Council of Ministers has Collective

Responsibility towards each other which mean that the council shares the
responsibility for the lapses of each and every minister. Moreover, the
individual minister cannot differ from the decision of the council,
particularly the Cabinet. Thus, in order to oppose the policy or decisions
of the cabinet, the minister has to resign from the council and then refute
it on the floors of the legislature.

The above are the essential features of the Parliamentary system of government
in India. Therefore, it can be said that this form of democracy rests on the
“Body of representatives or Political Parties” elected by the people of the
country. The Indian Constitution has various provisions facilitating the
parliamentary system. It has also been held by the Supreme Court of our
country that the Parliamentary system forms the basic structure of our
constitution and therefore, many legal problems might arise if any switch from
the present system is made.

BENEFITS OF THE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM OF

GOVERNMENT:

The parliamentary form of government offers the following benefits owing to

its features:

 Smooth Functioning: The close link between the executive and the
legislature avoids any kind of conflict between the two organs of the
government. This also ensures as working of both of them in a
complementary way to each other. In India, there is a concept of partial
separation of powers which accounts for freedom accompanied with
 responsibility and accountability. Therefore, the two organs can function
without any interference if they work as per the interest of the masses.

 Flexibility: There is flexibility in the system as the PM can be changed

easily if needed. During the Second World War, the British PM Neville
Chamberlain was replaced by Winston Churchill. This is unlike the
presidential system where he/she can be replaced only after the entire
term or in case of impeachment/incapacity.

 Quick Decision Making: If the ruling party enjoys majority in the

legislature, then the executive can take decisions quickly and implement
them without any hindrance and fear of being let down on the floor of the
House. This can be very helpful in case of constructive decision making
and overcoming the problems of procedural delays.

 Representing diverse groups: In this system, the parliament offers

representation to diverse groups of the country. This is especially
important for a country like India.

 Better coordination between the executive and the legislature: Since

the executive is a part of the legislature, and generally the majority of the
legislature support the government, it is easier to pass laws and
implement them.

 Prevent Authoritarianism: In the Parliamentary system power is

divided among the council of ministers and the ruling party does not
become all-powerful the government may resign if a vote of no
confidence is passed against them. There are many institutions that keep
vigilance on the activities of the government.
DISADVANTAGES OF PARLIAMENTARY FORM OF
GOVERNMENT :
Despite such benefits, there are certain flaws of this system which are as
follows:

 Unqualified legislators: The parliamentary system has created

unqualified legislators, who have sought election only in order to wield
executive power.
It limits executive posts to those who are electable rather than to
those who are able, e.g. the prime minister cannot appoint a cabinet of his
choice; he has to cater to the wishes of the political leaders of several
parties.

 No Separation of Power: Since there is no genuine separation of powers,

the legislature cannot always hold the executive responsible. This is
especially true if the government has a good majority in the house. Also,
because of anti-defection rules, legislators cannot exercise their free will
and vote as per their understanding and opinions. They have to follow the
party whip.

 Distorted Voting Preference: It has distorted the voting preferences of

an electorate that knows which individual it wants to vote for but not
necessarily which party.

 Fickle Legislative Majority: It has forced governments to concentrate

less on governing than on staying in office, and obliged them to cater
their coalitions. It puts insurance on defections and horse-
trading. The anti-defection Act of 1985 has failed to cure the problem,
since the bargaining has shifted to getting enough MLAs to resign to
topple a government, while promising them offices when they win the
subsequent by-elections.

 Powerful Executive: Most of the laws are drafted by the executive and
parliamentary input into their formulation and passage is minimal. It has
been seen that the ruling party issues a whip to its members in order to
 ensure unimpeded passage of a bill.
Since defiance of a whip itself attracts disqualification, MPs blindly vote
as their party directs. Hence, the parliamentary system does not permit
the existence of a legislature distinct from the executive.

PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM:

In a presidential system, the head of the government leads an executive, that is

distinct from the legislature. Here, the head of the government and the head of
the state are one and the same. Also, a key feature is that the executive is not
responsible to the legislature.
The executive is often known as President. Countries that have a presidential
form of government are US, Afghanistan, Brazil, Maldives and Nigeria.

In the Presidential form of government, the executive is led by the President. In

this form of government, the President act both as the head of the state and also
the head of the government. In this form of government, the President takes up
the charge in his own capacity rather than acting on the aid and advice of the
Cabinet, as in the form of Parliamentary Form of Government. The President is
elected directly by the people. The President s also the supreme commander of
the Army and also has the power to carry on the Foreign Policies.

FEATURES OF PRESIDENTIAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT:

The Key features of the Presidential System are as follows:

 President is the Real Head- The President is both the head of the State
as well as of the Government. This enables him to take bold and quick
decisions without any interference of the ministers. They may advise him,
but the President is not bound to follow them and the Ministers have to
implement the decisions taken.

 President is elected directly by the people through the electoral

college: The elections in the US are held on the method of the first-past-
the-post system. Article 2 of the U.S Constitution establishes the method
of election of the President. In other US elections, candidates are elected
directly by popular vote. But the President and the Vice-President are not
elected directly by the people of the country. They are chosen by the
 electors through the process of the electoral college. All members of the
federal legislature are elected directly by the people of each state.

 President has a fixed tenure: In a Presidential system, the President has

a fixed tenure. Elections are held regularly and cannot be disturbed by
passing of no-confidence motion or other parliamentary procedures.

 Executive (President) can veto acts of the Legislature: The executive

here is a President who can veto acts or laws passed by the Congress
(legislature). Basically, veto means the power of the President to approve,
refuse or joint resolution to prevent the enactment of any law.

MERITS OF PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM:

The advantages of the presidential system are given below:

 Separation of powers: Efficiency of administration is greatly enhanced

since the three arms of the government are independent of each other.

 Expert government: Since the executive need not be legislators, the

President can choose experts in various fields to head relevant
departments or ministries. This will make sure that people who are
capable and knowledgeable form part of the government.

 Stability: This type of government is stable. Since the term of the

president is fixed and not subject to majority support in the legislative, he
need not worry about losing the government. There is no danger of a
sudden fall of the government. There is no political pressure on the
president to make decisions.

 Less influence of the party system: Political parties do not attempt to

dislodge the government since the tenure is fixed.
DISADVANTAGES OF PRESIDENTIAL FORM OF
GOVERNMENT:

 Deadlock and Rigidity- No accountability leads to lack of cooperation

between the executive and legislature. There is a tendency in both the
organs to find fault and refute each other’s decisions and policies. This
gives rise to conflicts in the administration. Moreover, this system is too
rigid to adapt to the changing situations and demands. No matter how
grave or critical the situation demands the change of leadership, the
Presidential system cannot be changed instantaneously.

 Dictatorial: Since there is a concentration of all of the executive powers

in the President and there is no accountability of the executive to the
legislature and people; which President cannot be recalled by the people
if he is found to be incompetent or dishonest, instead of following a
complicated and difficult process of his impeachment. Therefore, there is
every possibility of the misuse or abuse of those powers by the President.

 Less Responsible Executive: Since the executive is not responsible to

the legislature, the executive tends to be less responsible. The legislature
also has no hold of the executive and the President who may turn
authoritarian. This makes winning an election in this system very
important, as he cannot be easily removed and he is not dependent on his
political party for his tenure.

 Spoils system: The system gives the president sweeping powers of

patronage. Here, he can choose executives as per his will. This gives rise
to the spoils system where people close to the president (relatives,
business associates, etc.) get roles in the government.

 Autocratic: A presidential system centralises power in one

individual unlike the parliamentary system, where the Prime Minister is
the first among equals. The surrender to the authority of one individual,
as in the presidential system, is dangerous for democracy.
 SHOULD INDIA ADPOT A PRESIDENTIAL FORM OF
GOVERNMENT?

It is argued by some section of the society that the political system in India was
created based entirely on British parliamentary democracy and their experience
of what they themselves were deprived of. So, according to these people, the
Westminster model of democracy is not suited to our reality.
Traditionally, there have been three criticisms of the presidential form of
government: the president can assume dictatorial powers; the executive is not
responsible to the directly elected legislature; and finally, if the president
belongs to one party and the legislature is controlled by another party, it can
lead to conflict and paralysis. Each of these criticisms can be dealt with. As the
US experience has shown, there are definite checks and balances in the
presidential system.

Benefits of Presidential system:

 First, it will force political parties to be more democratic and robust.

All political parties will have to choose their best candidates as there
will be a direct head-to-head contest. The people will not accept
anyone less. There will be no alternate power centers, no remote
controls, and no backseat drivers. Those not in the magic circle will
get an opportunity.
 Second, the voters will know their candidates intimately. The
electorate has enough data to take calls on their candidates.
 Third, the president will be fully in charge of the executive. He will
be able to attract the best and brightest to his cabinet, irrespective of
their political affiliations. They will serve at his pleasure and be
accountable to him. He won’t have to fix quotas for allies or give
important positions to senior but incompetent leaders. Nor will he
have to waste time thinking about their loyalty.
 Fourth, the government will be stable. The president will be elected
by the people and will be voted out by them. He will not have to
appease unreasonable allies and indulge in compromises all the time.
He can raise FDI sectoral caps, increase the price of diesel, and hike
train fares without thinking that his job is in danger or that he will be
forced to rollback these measures.
  Fifth, the legislature will be free to do its work. The job of
parliament is to pass laws. But opposition law-makers have begun to
believe their duty is to bring down the government. Once that power
is taken away from them, it will bring them back to their primary
task of discussing bills and passing laws that will improve the lot of
the people.

Arguments against Presidential system:

A presidential system centralizes power in one individual unlike the

parliamentary system, where the Prime Minister is the first among equals.
The surrender to the authority of one individual, as in the presidential
system, is dangerous for democracy.
The over-centralization of power in one individual is something we have
to guard against. Those who argue in favour of a presidential system often
state that the safeguards and checks are in place: that a powerful President
can be stalled by a powerful legislature. But if the legislature is dominated
by the same party to which the President belongs, a charismatic President
or a “strong President” may prevent any move from the legislature.

The presidential system’s reputation in India is sullied because its name became
associated with an autocrat. How exactly does the American structure make it
impossible for the president to become a dictator?
 First, there is the federal structure. The state governments are
genuinely sovereign. They cannot be controlled, even by the
combined forces of Congress and the president.
 Second, the executive, legislative and judiciary are not just separate
in powers but in institutions. Each institution derives its legitimacy
directly from the people, not from another branch.
 Third, each institution is balanced with others. In the legislature, the
balance is between the House and the Senate, and then with the
president. In the judiciary it is with the executive and legislature,
and with the states. The executive is balanced with the Senate with
regard to treaties and appointments.
 Lastly, the people hold direct sway over them all. They elect the
legislative and the executive branches separately.
Need for a shift:

Our parliamentary system is a perversity only the British could have devised: to
vote for a legislature in order to form the executive. It has created a unique
breed of legislator, largely unqualified to legislate, who has sought election only
in order to wield executive power. There is no genuine separation of powers: the
legislature cannot truly hold the executive accountable since the government
wields the majority in the House. The parliamentary system does not permit the
existence of a legislature distinct from the executive, applying its collective
mind freely to the nation’s laws.

 For 25 years till 2014, our system has also produced coalition
governments which have been obliged to focus more on politics than
on policy or performance. It has forced governments to conce ntrate
less on governing than on staying in office, and obliged them to
cater to the lowest common denominator of their coalitions, since
withdrawal of support can bring governments down. The
parliamentary system has distorted the voting preferences of an
electorate that knows which individuals it wants but not necessarily
which parties or policies.

 Besides, India’s many challenges require political arrangements that

permit decisive action, whereas ours increasingly promote drift and
indecision. We must have a system of government whose leaders can
focus on governance rather than on staying in power.

Concerns in the Indian context:

The notion that the presidential system could lapse into dictatorship took root
first during Indira Gandhi’s Emergency in the mid-1970s. It was widely
believed that she wanted to adopt the presidential form of government to further
her own autocratic reign.
The fallacy that the presidential system has autocratic tendencies, however, still
prevails.

Why Presidential system may not be suitable for India?

 A diverse country like India cannot function without consensus -
building. This “winner takes it all” approach, which is a necessary
consequence of the presidential system, is likely to lead to a
 situation where the views of an individual can ride roughshod over
the interests of different segments.
 The other argument, that it is easier to bring talent to governance in
a presidential system, is specious. Besides, ‘outside’ talent can be
brought in a parliamentary system too. On the other hand, bringing
‘outside’ talent in a presidential system without people being
democratically elected would deter people from giving independent
advice to the chief executive because they owe their appointment to
him/her.
 Those who speak in favour of a presidential system have only the
Centre in mind. They have not thought of the logical consequence,
which is that we will have to move simultaneously to a
“gubernatorial” form in the States. A switch at the Centre will also
require a change in the States.

WAY FORWARD:

However, a switchover to the presidential system is not possible under our

present constitutional scheme because of the ‘basic structure’ doctrine
propounded by the Supreme Court in 1973 which has been accepted by the
political class without reservation, except for an abortive attempt during the
Emergency by Indira Gandhi’s government to have it overturned. The
Constituent Assembly had made an informed choice after considering both the
British model and the American model and after Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had drawn
up a balance sheet of their merits and demerits. To alter the informed choice
made by the Constituent Assembly would violate the ‘basic structure’ of the
Constitution.

CONCLUSION:

The system of government under which man lives is fundamental to his being.
Government is behind every evil in society, and every virtue. It shapes a
society’s character. A good government allows individuals to become honest
and virtuous; a bad one makes them wicked and corrupt. A system of
government, therefore, isn’t simply a matter of man’s prosperity or liberty; it is
also a matter of his morality. For a nation to prosper, its political system must
foster a national vision, ensure fairness and encourage participation. When a
nation has vision, when its citizens’ efforts are fairly rewarded and when there
are opportunities for participation, the nation rises. Hence, an informed debate is
necessary in this regard.