DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

2015-2016

POLITICAL SCIENCE
FINAL DRAFT
WHY INDIA SHOULD ADOPT PRESIDENTIAL
SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT ?
SUBMITTED UNDER

THE GUIDANCE OF- SUBMITTED BY-

Ms. Monika Srivastava Avinash Maurya

Assistant Professor Semester - I

Dr. RMLNLU,Lucknow Roll No.- 35

B.A.LLB (Hons.)

Dr.RMLNLU, Lucknow
1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT……………………………………………….........3

CHAPTER I- PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT……….…4

CHAPTER II- ADVANTAGES OF PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM OF

GOVERNMENT……………………………………………………………....5

CHAPTER III- SITUATION IN INDIA……………………………………10

CHAPTER IV- WORKING OF PRESIDENTIAL FOR OF

GOVERNMENT IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES.......................………….12

CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………….19

BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………….…20

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to extend special thanks and gratitude to my teacher, Miss. Monika Srivastava
who gave me this golden opportunity to work on “Why India should adopt Presidential
System of Government.”

Throughout the research period I have been time and again guided by my teacher.

I’d also like to convey my regards to Library Staff of my university for helping me out and
getting relevant material for me.
I would like to thank my university Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law ,for giving me
the chance to be a part of an unique research oriented curriculum which indeed boosts the
understanding of the subject.

I would also like to thank my parents, mentors and well-wishers who have been a constant
support and have time and again reviewed my work and have provided their insights on the
matter.

Avinash Maurya
Sem- I
Roll no. – 35
B.A.LLB (Hons.)
Dr. RMLNLU, Lucknow

3
CHAPTER I- PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT

A presidential system is a republican system of government where a head of government is

also head of state and leads an executive branch that is separate from a legislative branch.
The executive is elected and often titled "president" and is not responsible to the legislature
and cannot, in normal circumstances, dismiss it. The legislature may have the right, in
extreme cases, to dismiss the executive, often through impeachment.

However, such dismissals are seen as so rare, for example, the United States of America
follows perfect presidential system but only two United States presidents were impeached,
and neither case led to removal.

Presidential systems are numerous and diverse, but the following are generally true:

 The executive can veto legislative acts and, in turn, a supermajority of lawmakers may
override the veto. The veto is generally derived from the British tradition of royal
assent in which an act of parliament can only be enacted with the assent of the monarch.
 The president has a fixed term of office. Elections are held at regular times and cannot be
triggered by a vote of confidence or other parliamentary procedures. Although in some
countries there is an exception, which provides for the removal of a president who is
found to have broken a law.
 The executive branch is unipersonal. Members of the cabinet serve at the pleasure of the
president and must carry out the policies of the executive and legislative branches.
However, presidential systems often need legislative approval of executive nominations
to the cabinet, judiciary, and various lower governmental posts. A president generally can
direct members of the cabinet, military, or any officer or employee of the executive
branch, but cannot direct or dismiss judges.

4
CHAPTER II- ADVANTAGES OF PRESIDENTIAL FORM OF

GOVERNMENT

There are generally four basic advantages for presidential systems:

 Direct elections — in a presidential system, the president is often elected directly by the
people. This makes the president's power more legitimate than that of a leader appointed
indirectly. However, this is not a necessary property of a presidential system. Some
presidential states have an unelected or indirectly elected head of state.
 Separation of powers — a presidential system establishes the presidency and the
legislature as two parallel structures. This allows each structure to monitor and check the
other, preventing abuses of power.
 Speed and decisiveness — a president with strong powers can usually enact changes
quickly. However, the separation of powers can also slow the system down.
 Stability — a president, by virtue of a fixed term, may provide more stability than a
prime minister, who can be dismissed at any time.

5
  DIRECT ELECTIONS
In most presidential systems, the president is elected by popular vote, although some such as
the United States use an electoral college (which is itself directly elected) or some other
method.

By this method, the president receives a personal mandate to lead the country, whereas in a
parliamentary system a candidate might only receive a personal mandate to represent a
constituency, that means the President only be elected independent of the parliaments.

 SEPARATION OF POWERS
The fact that a presidential system separates the executive from the legislature is sometimes
held up as an advantage, in that each branch may scrutinize the actions of the other.

In a parliamentary system, the executive is drawn from the legislature, making criticism
of one by the other considerably less likely. A formal condemnation of the executive by the
legislature is often regarded to be a vote of no confidence.

According to supporters of the presidential system, the lack of checks and balances means
that misconduct by a prime minister may never be discovered. Writing
about Watergate, Woodrow Wyatt, a former MP in the UK, said "don't think a Watergate
couldn't happen here, you just wouldn't hear about it."

Critics respond that if a presidential system's legislature is controlled by the president's party,
the same situation exists.

Proponents note that even in such a situation a legislator from the president's party is in a
better position to criticize the president or his policies should he deem it necessary, since
the immediate security of the president's position is less dependent on legislative
support.

In parliamentary systems, party discipline is much more strictly enforced. If a

parliamentary backbencher publicly criticizes the executive or its policies to any significant
extent then he/she faces a much higher prospect of losing his/her party's nomination, or even
outright expulsion from the party.

6
Despite the existence of the no confidence vote, in practice, it is extremely difficult to stop a
prime minister or cabinet that has made its decision. In a parliamentary system, if important
legislation proposed by the incumbent prime minister and his cabinet is "voted down" by a
majority of the members of parliament then it is considered to be a vote of no confidence.
The incumbent government must then either resign or call elections to be held, a consequence
few backbenchers are willing to endure. Hence, a no confidence vote in some parliamentary
countries, like Britain, only occurs a few times in a century.

In 1931, David Lloyd George told a select committee: "Parliament has really no control over
the executive; it is a pure fiction." (Schlesinger 1982)

By contrast, if a presidential legislative initiative fails to pass a legislature controlled by

the president's party (e.g. the Clinton health care plan of 1993), it may damage the
president's political standing and that of his party, but generally has no immediate
effect on whether or not the president completes his term.

 SPEED AND DECISIVENESS

Some supporters of presidential systems claim that presidential systems can respond more
rapidly to emerging situations than parliamentary ones.

A prime minister, when taking action, needs to retain the support of the legislature, but a
president is often less constrained. In Why England Slept, John F. Kennedy said
that Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain were constrained by the need to
maintain the confidence of the Commons.

Other supporters of presidential systems sometimes argue in the exact opposite direction,
however, saying that presidential systems can slow decision-making to beneficial ends.
Divided government, where the presidency and the legislature are controlled by different
parties, is said to restrain the excesses of both parties, and guarantee bipartisan input into
legislation.

7
In the United States, Republican Congressman Bill Frenzel wrote in 1995:

There are some of us who think gridlock is the best thing since indoor plumbing.
Gridlock is the natural gift the Framers of the Constitution gave us so that the country
would not be subjected to policy swings resulting from the whimsy of the public. And
the competition—whether multi-branch, multi-level, or multi-house—is important to
those checks and balances and to our ongoing kind of centrist government. Thank
heaven we do not have a government that nationalizes one year and privatizes next
year, and so on ad infinitum.

 STABILITY
Although most parliamentary governments go long periods of time without a no
confidence vote, Italy, Israel, and the French Fourth Republic have all experienced
difficulties maintaining stability.

When parliamentary systems have multiple parties and governments are forced to rely on
coalitions, as they often do in nations that use a system of proportional representation,
extremist parties can theoretically use the threat of leaving a coalition to further their
agendas.

Many people consider presidential systems to be more able to survive emergencies.

A country under enormous stress may, supporters argue, be better off being led by a
president with a fixed term than rotating premierships. France during the Algerian
controversy switched to a semi-presidential system as did Sri Lanka during its civil war,
while Israel experimented with a directly elected prime minister in 1992.

In France and Sri Lanka, the results are widely considered to have been positive.
However, in the case of Israel, an unprecedented proliferation of smaller parties occurred,
leading to the restoration of the previous system of selecting a prime minister.

The fact that elections are fixed in a presidential system is considered to be a welcome
"check" on the powers of the executive, contrasting parliamentary systems, which often
allow the prime minister to call elections whenever they see fit, or orchestrate their own
vote of no confidence to trigger an election when they cannot get a legislative item
passed. The presidential model is said to discourage this sort of opportunism, and instead
force the executive to operate within the confines of a term they cannot alter to suit their

8
own needs. Theoretically, if a president's positions and actions have had a positive impact
on their respective country, then it is likely that their party's candidate (possibly them)
will be elected for another term in office.

Proponents of the presidential system also argue that stability extends to the cabinets
chosen under the system, compared to a parliamentary system where cabinets must be
drawn from within the legislative branch. Under the presidential system, cabinet
members can be selected from a much larger pool of potential candidates. This allows
presidents the ability to select cabinet members based as much or more on their ability
and competency to lead a particular department as on their loyalty to the president, as
opposed to parliamentary cabinets which might be filled by legislators chosen for no
better reason than their perceived loyalty to the prime minister. Supporters of the
presidential system note that parliamentary systems frequently go through disruptive
"cabinet shuffles" where legislators are moved between portfolios, whereas in
presidential system cabinets (such as the United States Cabinet), cabinet shuffles are
unheard.

9
 CHAPTER III- SITUATION IN INDIA

The question as to whether parliamentary system of democracy has lived upto the
expectations of founding fathers of the Constitution as also those millions of people has been
penetrating the minds of Constitution experts, legislators, academicians and the intellectuals
since long.

A lot of debate had taken place in parliament, in Press and in public. The outcome of the
Elections in 1967 resulting in the formation of non –Congress coalition governments in
several states marked the beginning of the new chapter in the working of Parliamentary
democracy in India.

And today, India has witnessed many a problems arising:

 Dynastic Politics- Dilution of Democracy

The fast emerging trend amongst politicians to nominate their progeny as successors
to their political legacy has come to stay as biggest bane of our Parliamentary system.
The general elections to Lok Sabha in year 2004 brought to surface a unique factor at
an unprecedented scale in which every politician was seen joining the scramble to
install his or her son or daughter in politics.

Nearly one-third of the members of 15th Lok Sabha are drawn from politicians’
families.
Even then Finance Minister Mr. Pranab Mukherjee, while speaking before H.T.
Leadership Summit, supported this practice when he remarked that the practice of
dynastic politics is not new to India.
He said that in countries like UK and USA too the practice is not uncommon as
nearly 6 US Presidents and 56 British Prime Ministers were related to each
other.

10
 He however, failed to distinguish that mere relationship by co-incidence is
entirely different from a politician using his power, position to promote or groom
the political prospects of his progeny.

 Electoral Malpractices, Poor Polling and Illiteracy

Conducting Election in India is a gigantic task and involves massive mobilization of
money, men and resources.
The total budget for Parliamentary elections in 2009 was set to a whopping Rs. 10,000
Crores.
Where as in 2008 Barack Obama and other candidates spent around Rs.8,000 Crores
that too in a yearlong campaign in USA.

In spite of number of measures introduced by Election Commission of India to check

electoral malpractices, which the EC receives, are over use of money power, bogus
voting, misuse of official machinery including state-owned vehicles and helicopters,
emotional appeals to voters in the name of Caste or Religion and inciting people on
the basis of parochial or regional sentiments.

Poverty and illiteracy are other contributory factors which play their dominant role in
weakening of the system. It is anticipated that there are 260 mn people who live BPL.
According to UNESCO’S World Monitoring Report 2005, India occupies top
position with 33 Crores illiterate people.
Surprisingly, neighbouring countries Pakistan and Bangladesh have only 6 and 7
percent population illiterate respectively.

The above factors together play there such a dominant role that every political
party tries hard to create vote bank by making appeal to their sentiments.
Thus, Calibre taking back seat.

11
CHAPTER IV- WORKING OF PRESIDENTIAL FORM OF
GOVERNMENT IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES

The Presidential form of government is working nearly in 23 countries, viz. argentina, Brazil,
Bilivia, Chile, Coloumbia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guetemala,
Haiti, Liberia, Mexico, Honduras, Nicergua, Pnanma, Paraguay, Peru, South Morea, South
Vietnam, Uruguay, USA, Venezuela.

However the doctrine of separation of power has no uniform application and constitutional
provisions differ from country to country.

In various countries, the Presidents possesses vast powers even in matters relating to judiciary
and legislation. The constitution of Islamic republic of Iran was approved by a nationalist
referendum in December 1979, confers vast powers on president.

Working of Presidential system in Mexico

Mexican constitutional arrangement resembles those of the USA. Like the USA it is a
democratic and federal system with separation of powers and a bicameral legislation. Both
the nations have their system rooted in democratic principles. Yet the president of mexico
differs in his constitutional position from his US counterpart in several ways. The president is
elected for 6 years and is not eligible for re-election for another term. He is elected by direct,
popular universal suffrage.

Another significant feature which distinguishes the Mexican system from the rest relates to
the “President’s cabinet” comprising the nation’s leading figure, and persons drawn from
different fields. By and large, it is from this cabinet the next president is often chosen. The
experience of the working of “President’s Cabinet” has not been found encouraging as it has
promoted corruption, nepotism, and hearsay politics.

12
  Working of Presidential System in Brazil

Since 1970s Brazil emerged as the fastest growing economy in the world. Yet its people
continued to be deprived of having democratic rights as it remained under the military rule
from 1964-85. It was in the year 1984 when Brazilian population rose as one nation to
overthrow the military rule and change the constitution. A persistent struggle by the people
ultimately translated the goal of freedom into reality when on 5th October 1988 the country
adopted is constitution restoring the democratic rights to the people.

The Brazilian constitution of 1988 sets up the presidential system of government with
separation of powers among Executive headed by President, Legislature named as national
congress and an independent Judiciary named as supreme federal tribunal.

13
 CONCLUSION

The Presidential form of Government should be adopted by India.

A transition from Parliamentary system to Presidential system would entail amendments in

the following articles of the Constitution for which parliament is competent to do so as
brought from the substance of the Supreme Court’s decision Keshvanda Bharti case, to
name a few:

1. Art 53(3) (a) and (b):

The article states that “nothing shall be deemed to transfer to the President any
functions conferred by an existing law on the Government of any state or
aauthority

2. Art 61:
Procedure for impeachment of President.

3. Art 73:
Powers of president.

4. Art 74,75:
Role of Council of Ministers

5. Art 78:
Role, duties of Prime Minister.

14
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Verma,G.L, Parliamentary Versus Presidential system of government,2,2010.

2. http://www.indiabix.com/group-discussion/presidential-v-s-parliamentary-
form-of-government-in-india/ [ 24.08.13]
3. http://able2know.org/topic/88776-1 [24.08.13]
4. Shankkar Aiyar, Time to switch from surrogate to the real presidential
system?, Indian Express, (New Delhi, 27 Jan 2013).
5. http://bharatabharati.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/presidential-system-of-
government-best-for-india-gautam-sen/ [25.08.13]
6. Shashi Tharoor, Presidential system promotes nationalism, The Times of
India, (Bangalore, 24 Feb 2008)
7. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/poke-me/poke-me-why-india-
needs-a-presidential-system-of-government/articleshow/16364369.cms
[26.08.13]
8. http://www.itsnotyellow.com/it-time-adopting-presidential-form-governance-
india [26.08.13]
9. http://www.indiacurrents.com/articles/2012/02/06/should-india-adopt-
presidential-system [27.08.13]

15