Parliamentary vs Presidential System
Does India need a presidential system?
Debate can be divided in to feasibility and desirability
- In the existing constitutional scheme, change is not possible. Supreme court of India already held parliamentary form of Government as part of the basic structure of the constitution.
- Presidential system centralizes power and chances of it turning in to an authoritative system are high.
- If India’s diversity is taken in to consideration, it is not advisable to have a presidential system. Presidential system do not reflect the diversity well.
- Presidential system can create a stalemate situation between executive and legislature.
- Presidential system allows for quick decision making . Fixed term for executive makes him invulnerable from the politics of the day and provides stability. Decisiveness is necessary for India to deal with its enormous challenges.
- Accountability is better in Presidential system. Unlike in parliamentary system where Executive enjoys majority, there is no guarantee for the same in presidential system.
- President appoints his officers. It can bring in more talent in to the system.
- Parliamentary system have distorted voting preference of voters. It mean that voters are forced to vote for a candidate to have a particular leader as CM or Prime Minister.
- India will not have a US style two party grid lock. So issue based coalitions comes in to picture. It helps for greater debate in the houses.
- Most of the legislatures coming in to the houses are with little legislative experience and are participating in elections to get hold of executive power. It mean that they can not act as an effective legislative control.