what is the conclusion of the parliamentary form of goverment
Answers
Explanation:
India has adopted the parliamentary form of government. But the adoption of
parliamentary fonn of government has not happened through a process of
gradual evolution, as in England. In India, this form of government was
deliberately adopted by the Constituent Assembly. Since adoption of the
Constitution, over the years, especially after 1977, India is witnessing a phase of
political transition. There has been a mushrooming growth of political parties. In
spite of adoption of the first-past-the-post system, electorate is divided and is
returning hung Parliament and Legislative Assemblies.
Under Art. 75(1) of the Constitution, the President has the power to appoint
the Prime Minister and under Art. 164( 1) the Governor has the power to appoint
the Chief Minister of a State. However, apart from Art. 75(3) and 164(2), which
mention about the principle of collective responsibility of the council of
ministers to the respective House, there is no other guidance provided as to
whom the President or the Governor should appoint as the Prime Minister or the
Chief Minister. The Constitution is completely silent as to whom the President
should invite to form the government in case of hung parliament. In case of clear
electorate mandate, the choice for the President and the Governor is obvious. The
leader of the majority party in the House of the People or the State Legislative
Assembly is appointed. With the fractured electoral mandate, where no political
party has a clear majority in the House, the exercise of this power by the
President and the Governor has been becoming increasingly difficult.
Explanation:
Conclusion
The 2017–19 parliament was shaped by minority government and Brexit – a divisive issue that cut across party lines. These twin factors had a profound and detrimental effect on the relationship between the government and parliament and pushed parliamentary procedures to their limits, exposing many longstanding concerns about the way the two Houses operate, and raising important questions about how politicians and the public see parliament’s role.
Since the end of the 2017–19 parliament, the coronavirus crisis – and the unprecedented political and economic response to it – have put many of the events of the 2017–19 parliament into sharp perspective. Nonetheless, while the twists and turns of events in parliament are no longer headline news, the turbulence of the past two and a half years is still likely to have a lasting impact.
The coronavirus crisis has required parliament rapidly to revisit many of its procedures and ways of working – testing its resilience. Some changes that in normal times would have taken months, if not years, to reach consensus on have been rushed through in days. Effective democratic scrutiny is essential for ensuring the legitimacy and efficacy of the government’s response. This has meant that difficult questions about how to prioritise limited technical and staffing resources, maintain security and transparency and ensure parliament can fulfil all of its functions in spite of the pandemic are having to be addressed under considerable time pressure. Compared to some other legislatures – in the UK and internationally – the Westminster parliament has maintained a broader array of parliamentary activity, albeit often in modified form, demonstrating that it can reform at pace when required. But it is also clear that there is considerable desire among many politicians to ensure that the changes that have been made remain temporary.
hope this is helpful please mark me as brain list and thank me rate me please