send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Please specify
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
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: a) the president can assume dictatorial powers; b) the executive is not responsible to the directly elected legislature; c) 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.
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 centres, 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 wont 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
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?
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.
• However, a switch over 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.
• 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.
By: Parveen bansal ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources