Presidential vs Parliamentary Form of Government

In Context

• Recently, West Bengal Chief Minister alleged that attempts are being made for a Presidential form of government in India.

About the Presidential & Parliamentary form of government

• About:
  • Modern democratic governments are classified into parliamentary and presidential.
  • This division is broadly on the basis of the nature of relations between the executive and the legislative organs of the government.

Reasons for adopting the Parliamentary form of government

• A plea was made in favour of the US presidential system of government in the Constituent Assembly. But, the founding fathers preferred the British parliamentary system due to the following reasons:
• Familiarity with the System: 
  • The Constitution-makers were somewhat familiar with the parliamentary system as it had been in operation in India during British rule.
• Preference to More Responsibility:
  • Dr B R Ambedkar pointed out in the Constituent Assembly that ‘a democratic executive must satisfy two conditions: stability and responsibility.
• Need to Avoid Legislative—Executive Conflicts: 
  • The framers of the Constitution wanted to avoid the conflicts between the legislature and the executive which are bound to occur in the presidential system prevalent in the USA. 
  • They wanted a form of government that would be conducive to the manifold development of the country.
• Nature of Indian Society:
  • India is one of the most heterogeneous States and most complex plural societies in the world. 
  • Hence, the Constitution-makers adopted the parliamentary system as it offers greater scope for giving representation to various sections, interests and regions in the government. 
  • This promotes a national spirit among the people and builds a united India.

Difference between Indian and British Parliamentary model

• In India, the system of democracy that exists is Parliamentary Democracy. This model has been borrowed from the UK, but there are certain differences:
• Republican vs monarchical system:
  • Head of the State in India (that is, President) is elected, while the Head of the State in Britain (that is, King or Queen) enjoys a hereditary position.
• Prime Minister:
  • While in the UK, the Prime Minister can only be from the lower house, in India, the Prime Minister can be from both Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha.
• Legal responsibility:
  • Britain has a system of legal responsibility of the minister while India has no such system.

Way ahead

• Way of adoption of these forms of government:
  • Both of these systems come with their own advantages and disadvantages. A country chooses the system which suits it the most.
  • There are some countries that have adopted a mixture of both these types as well. 
    • These systems have multiple differences based on separation of powers, accountability, executives etc.
• In India:
  • Whether the parliamentary system should be continued or should be replaced by the presidential system has been a point of discussion and debate in our country since the 1970s. 
  • This matter was considered in detail by the Swaran Singh Committee appointed by the Congress government in 1975.
  • The committee opined that the parliamentary system has been doing well and hence, there is no need to replace it by the presidential system.

Source: TH