Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Submitted By:
Deepanshi Chowdhary Roll. No. - 48 Semester- 4th
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction History and adoption of the parliamentary form of government Parliamentary form of government Presidential form of government Presidential v. Parliamentary form of government Advantages of Parliamentary form of government Loopholes of Parliamentary form of government Need of Presidential form of government Conclusion Bibliography
INRODUCTION
The Parliamentary system produces a stronger government, for (a) Members of the Executive and Legislature are overlapping and (b) the heads of the government control the Legislature K M Munshi . India has a parliamentary system of government based largely on that of the United Kingdom (Westminster system). However, eminent scholars including the first President Dr Rajendra Prasad have raised the question "how far we are entitled to invoke and incorporate into our written Constitution by interpretation the conventions of the British Constitution". The system was adopted in India because of the belief of a stronger and stable government that would help in the efficient functioning of the country.
A parliamentary system is a system of government in which the ministers of the executive branch get their democratic legitimacy from the legislature and are accountable to that body, such that the executive and legislative branches are intertwined. In such a system, the head of government is both de facto chief executive and chief legislator. If Britain is the best example of parliamentary form of government, presidential system has its best instance in the American political system.
its true character. The President though does not participate in the discussions of the two Houses, yet he exercises several powers and performs important functions. The president of India is elected by an Electoral College consisting of the elected members of the two Houses of the parliament and the Legislative Assemblies of the state. The Rajya Sabha which is another essential part of the parliament consists of not more than 250 members. Of these, 233 members represent states and union territories and 12 members are nominated by the President. Members to the Rajya Sabha are elected by the elected members of Legislative Assemblies of the concerned states. The Rajya Sabha is not subject to dissolution in contrast to the Lok Sabha and one third of its members retire every second year. However, in the Indian Polity, the Lok Sabha is composed of representatives of the people chosen by direct election on the basis of universal adult franchise. As present, the Lok Sabha consists of 545 members with two members nominated by the President to represent the Anglo-Indian Community. The term of the Lok Sabha is for five years and gets dissolved under circumstance of failure of the leading party to prove clear majority or a no-confidence motion. Article 74 (1) of the Constitution provides that there shall be a Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister to aid and advise the President who shall, in exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice. India is a bicameral parliament consisting of the Lok Sabha (House of the People) and the Rajya Sabha (Council of States). The Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha, the House of the People. The Council of Ministers comprises Cabinet Ministers, Minister of States and Deputy Ministers. It is the Prime Minister who communicates all decisions of the Council of Ministers relating to administration of affairs of the Union and proposals for legislation to the President. Each department has an officer designated as secretary to the Government of India to advise Ministers on policy matters and general administration. The Cabinet Secretariat has important coordinating role in making decision at highest level and operates under direction of Prime Minister. Government of India has certain departments that carry on their duties under the supervision of several ministries. The Central Ministry is part of the Executive branch of Government India. Depending on the federal character of the political system of India, Indian Government Departments are divided into Central government departments and State Government department. The central ministry work independently and the State governments work under
the supervision of the Central Government. There are certain departments including Departments of Agriculture, Home Affairs, Commerce and Industry, External Affairs, Corporate Affairs, Defence, Information and Broadcasting, Civil Aviation, Human Resource Development, Railways, Environment and Forests, Finance and Company Affairs, Health and Family Welfare, Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Petroleum and Natural Gas, Power, Labour, Tourism, Women and Child Development, Youth Affairs and Sports and several others constitute the Indian Government Departments. These departments work for public welfare. The ministers of these government bodies are chosen through general election India at an interval of every five years. But the bureaucrats and other officials are appointed through competitive exams that are held throughout India.
separately
the legislature,
not responsible and which cannot, in normal circumstances, dismiss it. In the words of Bagehot, the independence of the legislative and the executive powers is the specific quality of presidential government just as fusion and combination is the principle of cabinet government".
Formally and legally, the President is not the majority party leader in the legislature. Under the Constitution, he is leader in neither of the two houses of Congress. On occasion, however, the President may function informally and unofficially as policy leader of one or both chambers of Congress in particular areas of national public policy. . The President, possessing a separate grant of constitutional authority and elected independently Congress to a fixed term which the latter cannot easily cut short, is not primarily responsible to the legislature. Instead, he is directly and primarily responsible to the American voters. Since the election of the President and the election of members of Congress are separate and independent elections, a political party's victory in the presidential election does not necessarily mean that the party will emerge victorious in the congressional elections. Conversely, the fact that a party has won a majority of the seats in one or both houses of Congress does not necessarily mean that it has also won the Presidency. Therefore, control of the principal organs of the U.S. national government may be divided between rival parties. The President, his staff officers, members of his Cabinet, and other high-ranking executive officers may be of one political party, while a majority in one or both chambers of Congress may be of the opposition party. The top executive authority, the President, is, in effect, elected by popular vote. Since the President is not chosen by Congress, the executive is not primarily responsible to the legislature. The chief executive, like the legislature, receives his mandate to govern from the voters and is thereby directly responsible to them. Moreover, the President, U.S. Representatives, and U.S. Senators are chosen by and responsible to different constituencies with varying and competing interests. The consequence is multiple and fragmented lines of political authority and responsibility.
2. EVIL OF DEFECTION: The evil of defection has been threatening the very basis of our parliamentary system resulting in unstable government. To cure this evil Parliament enacted the 52nd amendment in 1977 and added the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution which provided that if a member of a legislative party voluntarily leaves his party or votes against the whip or nominated member joins another party within six months of election he will lose his membership of the legislation. But one of the exceptions to the above rule is that if one third of the members goes out of the party it will be called a split and not defection and the separated group will be a new entity.
3. LACK OF COHESIVENESS AND LEADERSHIP IN NATIONAL PARTIES: Lack of unity and cohesion in national parties, particularly the Congress party and behaviour of the members of the different groups within the party have weakened the authority of the leader of the party who becomes the Prime Minister. It has been seen
that the Prime Minister has to devote much of his time in solving party disputes and little time is left to him to look after the nations work.
4. IILITERACY OF VOTERS: A vast majority of our electorate is illiterate and politically immune and in exercising his right of franchise is swayed away on the basis of caste, creed, religion, money etc. National issues are not at all considered by the electorates.
5. GROWTH OF REGIONAL PARTIES: The growth of local and regional parties arousing parochial and provincial feelings has also weakened the functioning of the parliamentary system. These regional parties are demanding more autonomy for the States and thus threaten the unity and integrity of the national.
6. CRIMINALISATION OF POLITICS: Criminalisation of politics has also affected the free and fair elections. Almost all parties have connections with known criminals. These criminal leaders spread violence in elections on a large scale. They resort to booth capturing, bogus voting etc. In the light of the experience of the functioning of parliamentary form of government during the last two decades it may be said that the present parliamentary system has not been working successfully and it should be replaced with the Presidential Form. An executive head directly elected by the people for a fixed term will be free from all restraints and will be able to provide political stability thereby helping the nation towards fast economic development.
The above pattern should apply at the States level also with the Governor being elected by a direct vote. Both at the Central level and the States levels the number of lawmakers should be restricted to a given number in double figures. Between the American and French systems of Presidential governance the American system is more preferable for India but with the important proviso that the President be elected by a direct vote of all citizens and not an electoral college. It would ensure that the person who emerges as Head of State and Head of Government of India would be the best bet that India has to offer. The qualifications for the Presidential candidate should incorporate excellence in intellectual attainments and personal integrity. It should have filters to keep out tainted and criminalized people. More importantly voting must be made compulsory for all citizens of India. This system would also facilitate millions of Indian expatriates to take part in determining Indias future.
CONCLUSION
Though the parliamentary system of government has many advantages as discussed and it was incorporated in the Constitution because of familiarity. The happenings during the last two decade clearly demonstrate that parliamentary form of government has almost failed. Efforts to remove its drawbacks have not been successful. This calls out for a need of introducing presidential form of government in India. But it may be possible that the Executive would assume absolute power and prove to be a threat to the democracy of the country. I believe a hybrid system which is a combination of Presidential System and Parliamentary Systems would be more appropriate for India. When France went through a long period of unstable coalition governments, in 1958 they changed from parliamentary System to so called Semi-Presidential System of government.
Within a decade, French political parties, once unwilling to cooperate and form stable coalitions, began to coalesce into a workable system with coalitions that supported not only prime ministers, but also presidents. The French hybrid system functions more smoothly when the majority party in parliament is also the party of the President, but this needs not always be the case. The term hybrid generally refers to a system with a separately elected President who shares executive power with the Prime Minister. The President usually has the constitutional power to select the Prime Minister. Switching over to another form of government would not solve the problem alone unless the ministers are willing to bring about a change in them for the betterment of the country.
BIBLIOGRAPY
BOOKS REFERRED Granville Austin, Essays on Constitutional Law, ( 1st Ed, Oxford University Press, 2006.) J N Pandey, Constitutional Law, (44th Ed, Central Law Agency,2007.) D.D.Basu, Constitutional Law on India,(8th Ed, 2008.) D.D.Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, (14th Ed, 2009) WEBSITES REFERRED 1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_system 2. www.essortment.com/parliamentary-versus-presidential-governments-60835.html 3. www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-a-parliamentary-andpresidential-system-of-government.htm 4. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system 5. www.academon.com/...Parliamentary-Form-of-Government/48464 6. rajendramishra.blogspot.com 7. www.shoong.com 8. www.indiannetzone.com 9. www.asianinfo.com 10. www.boloji.com