Q4. "Westminster model of democracy is unsuitable for a stable government in India". Opine.

The Westminster model of democracy constitutes the President as the nominal head, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet as the executive and the legislature. To execute control over the executive, the Constitution of India has provided safeguards such as budgetary control, debates in the parliament, question hours, adjournment motions and also the no-confidence motion. The policies framed by the ministries and independent members find their expression in bills which require parliamentary majority and presidential accord to become acts. But lately, problems such as unstable allied government, minority governments, stalling of sessions by the opposition and criminalisation of politics has paralyzed the democratic process and resulted into policy logjams. This has led people to consider alternate forms of government and analyze the relevance of the Westminster model in the Indian scenario. According to some poll results, people chose the presidential system as an alternative to the parliamentary system in India. The American Presidential system encompasses an independent executive and a bicameral legislature consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. All the three components are elected by the public and especially the President is elected by direct election. It means that the people poll for a particular candidate and not for a particular party as opposed to the election of the Prime Minister in India where the party chief decides the Prime Ministerial candidate who later has to win the approval of the parliament. What stands as the most attractive part of the Presidential system is the stability of the tenure of the President which allows him/her to take steadfast and quick decisions. The Indian experiment of direct elections has been implemented at the Panchayat level where the village Sarpanch (headman) is elected directly by the people and not indirectly by the elected panches (elected councillors). So far, this system has worked as an effectively in village republics. Another alternative to the Westminster model can be the German federal parliamentary republic system. Here, a vote of no confidence can be passed only when an alternative successor government can form a majority. If the condition is satisfied, the incumbent government can continue as a minority government in the parliament. If a successor government is not ready, the President then dissolves the entire Parliament and fresh elections take place. The advantage of such a system is that firstly, it checks the power of the President with respect to dissolving the house in the event of a no confidence motion. Secondly, the systems ensures stability and continuity in the legislative process as an alternative government can take over in a short period of time without stalling legislation by avoiding the cumbersome process of re-election. The minority government continue to work along with the successor government and thus continue to have an effect over legislation. An advantage of the German system is the electoral system where half of the seats are directly elected and the other half are indirectly elected. To be eligible to get indirect votes, the party must have garnered at-least 5% of the total votes polled and this prevents smaller parties from becoming a part of the parliament and eliminates the question of multi-party alliances. Such a system has also adopted by Sir Lanka who switch from the Westminster system to the French-style semi-presidential system. Instead of the system of first-past-the-post in India, Sri Lanka has adopted the system of proportional representation and made it mandatory for political parties to secure a minimum of 5%

votes of the total to ensure stability in the parliament by allowing only major parties into the parliament. Both the President as well as the Prime Minister in the Sri Lankan government are elected and equally strong institutions and hence in case of political logjam in the parliament, the President can continue to carry on the governance. The South Korean system has enabled a check on the possibility of autocratic tendencies in the President by limiting the term of the President to 5 years after which a new candidate is elected by the people. In India, Prime Ministerial candidates should be fixed like the American Presidential system and they should be allowed express their views and agendas as potential heads of Government to help the public take a well thought decision and also to insulate the candidate from inter-party politics. The German system of indirectly elected seats in the Parliament stands as a solution to criminalisation of politics in India as the elected parties project their best candidates in the indirect elections so as to secure more seats in the Parliament. The Indian parliamentary form of government is losing its democratic character and the control on the representatives is slipping from the hands of the republic to party politics and whimsical allied powers.