Question

Why did India opt for a parliamentary form of government ? (In 5 points)​

Answer 1

India adopted the Parliamentary form of democracy after getting Independence in 1947 because India had been familiar with its working during the days of the British rule. ... Moreover, while in a parliamentary democracy, the Executive is responsible to the legislature and therefore, the opposition always keeps it alert

$\huge {\mathcal{\purple{g}\green{o}\pink{o}\blue{g}\purple{l}\green{e}\pink{d}}}$

Answer 2

Answer:

India adopted the Parliamentary form of democracy after getting Independence in 1947 because India had been familiar with its working during the days of the British rule. Since then 13 general elections have been held to the Lok Sabha on the basis of universal adult franchise, and barring a few violent incidents during the polls, there has been peaceful transition of authority from one political party to the other. Moreover, while in a parliamentary democracy, the Executive is responsible to the legislature and therefore, the opposition always keeps it alert. For it “always lives in the shadow of a coming defeat.” As Laski points out, in a Presidential democracy the President does not have to fear any opposition because he is not responsible to the legislature. It can make him autocratic. Hence Esmein calls the system “autocratic, irresponsible and dangerous.” So, would it be advisable for us to hand over the destiny of our vast country with abundant resources and population to the whims and caprices of a dictatorial President?

Since the majority party or a majority coalition of several parties comes to power in a Parliamentary democracy, there is bound to be co-operation and harmony between the Executive and the Legislature. It ensures easy implementation of plans and policies of the ruling party for it can have its own way, no matter what the opposition parties in the Lok Sabha say.In the Presidential form, on the contrary, the system of separation of powers between the Executive and Legislature often leads to conflict: more so, if these two wings of the government are controlled by different parties. This leads to delay, confusion and procrastination. Therefore, it is advisable for us to continue with the present system which has unity of responsibility, direction and power.

It is always possible to remove a failed Prime Minister and replace him with a new competent and acceptable individual as per the wishes of the people. This happened in the United Kingdom during World War II when Chamberlain proved to be a timid Prime Minister and Churchill replaced him without any commutation taking place. But a President cannot be thus removed before the expiry of his tenure except by an extremely difficult process of Impeachment. Thus this system being rigid does not mould itself easily to abusing circumstances. Therefore, there is no point in having a Presidential democracy where even a persona non grata has to be tolerated for the remaining tenure of his office.

Bryce maintains that the Parliamentary form of Government secures swiftness in decision and vigor in action because cabinet can easily get the measures it deems essential passed through the Legislature. In the Presidential form, inordinate delay is caused in arriving at decisions, for the Legislature is to be convinced of major policy decisions.

“Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely” says Lord Acton. This applies to the position of a President vested with the entire administration and absolute power who might on his own take drastic action at home and in foreign policy and bring about great suffering to the people. We should therefore, maintain the status quo of Parliamentary Government, notwithstanding its shortcomings and faults, which has several heads to solve national problems in the form of the cabinet.

hope this will help