Presidential & Parliamentary Form Of Government

In a Presidential form of government the head of the state is elected directly by the people for a fixed time of office and the President is the real executive. He is not responsible to the legislative and chooses the members of council of ministers who are not members of the legislative and they are responsible to the President.

But in the Parliamentary form of the government, real executive power lies in the council headed by the Prime Minister and he is reasonable for the legislative.


The Parliamentary form of government is most suitable in India because members of the council of ministers are drawn from the legislature which is a miniature nation in assembly. Therefore it ensures better representation of all sections of the heterogeneous ( diverse ) population. Further it provides for direct continuous concurrent control of the people and the parliament for executive which is preferable for periodic control prevalent in presidential form of government provides close interaction but legislature and council of ministers which ensure smooth functioning of the government. 

On the other hand, the Presidential form of government separates power between executive and legislature. It may lead to classhed in the form of deadlock is posses of bill and budget causing constitutional crisis.


In the parliamentary form of government,  there is direct election to the legislature and not to the office of President. In case of Presidential form of government because of heterogeneous nature of India’s population and the existence of a large number of political parties or single leader may not be able to get the necessary majority in the election by breaking through barrier created by language, religion, caste, etc and thus it may involve more than one round of presidential election in addition to the direct election to the legislature.


The people of India are familiar with parliamentary form of government since Monte Morley ( 1908 ). This form of government has been a success in independent India and the people associate democracy with them. Often political instability is cited as a strong reason to switch over from the presidential form of government. But hung parliament and instability is more then result of oliversity of population and non fulfillment of regional demand on the emergence of many regional parties. 


Holding political instability without the present system which is otherwise successful is preferable than adopting a new form of government which is alien to the people of India. The adoption of constructive motion of no confidence and the development of condition culture are earlier than imposing a new system on the country. There is enough evidence to show the success of the emergence of coalitions in the country in the form of successful practice of coalition parties in Kerala and West Bengal. 


What is needed is to amend the rules and regulation of parliament to replace the present form of no confidence motion, the German model of constructive motion of no confidence. 


Constructive Motion Of No Confidence : – 

Under the model, two motions are introduced in the lower house of the legislature. The first motion is a motion of no confidence against the council of ministers. The second motion is the confidence motion in favour of the leader from the opposition. If the no confidence motion is defeated then it means the council of ministers enjoy a majority of the house. If both the motions are passed then the council of ministers shall have to resign and the leader from the opposition in which favour house has expressed the confidence. 


So the President shall invite the leader to form the next government. Thus the system provides for smooth transition of power as the legislature also elects a government to replace the council of ministers that has been defeated. 


Third possibility – No confidence motion and the confidence motions both are defeated in the house. In this situation, the council of ministers need not resign. It will continue as a minority government because the opposition has failed to provide an alternative government. The philosophy behind it is that the opposition can not bring down the council of ministers without offering an alternative government. This system can be introduced in india by merely amending the rules of procedure of Lok Sabha. As this provides rules and regulation and passes the no confidence motion. 


Disadvantages Of Parliamentary Form Of Government : –

1. It may lead to political instability cast by hung parliament. This affects the enactment of the proper legislation, administration, poor policy formulation, lack of general direction to the development of the country.
2. The government is more concerned about its political survival and thus the administration may be neglected.
3. It may lead to frequent elections and increased corruption.
4. Formation of an unhealthy political coalition and floor crossing.
5. The council of ministers shall have to withdraw from the legislature that it restricts talent and expedition into the council of ministers.
6. In the parliamentary form of government, in theory it is the parliament that exercises the control of the council of ministers but so long as the council of ministers enjoy the majority in the parliament. In practice it is the executive that controls the legislature. This may lead to fiscal deficit, poor financial control, etc.
7. The aberration of the parliamentary form of government is more visible than the poor will be the overwhelming majority or political instability due to hung parliament. In the first case the Prime Minister almost becomes powerful and dominates the administration of the country.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *