why did india opt for parliamentary system of government ?
Answers
and you give me brilliant ans
India adopted the Parliamentary form of democracy after getting Independence in 1947 becauseIndia had been familiar with its working during the days of the British rule. ... Moreover, while in aparliamentary democracy, the Executive is responsible to the legislature and therefore, the opposition always keeps it alert
Answer:
India adopted the Parliamentary form of democracy in the year 1947 for the following reasons: The familiarity of the Indian polity with the working of the British system of government. Representation of diverse interest groups. Fear of dead-lock between the executive and legislature.
Explanation:
India followed the Parliamentary form of democracy after getting Independence in 1947 because India have been familiar with its running during the times of the British rule. given that then 13 wellknown elections were held to the Lok Sabha on the premise of normal adult franchise, and barring some violent incidents in the course of the polls, there was peaceful transition of authority from one political party to the alternative. moreover, even as in a parliamentary democracy, the executive is responsible to the legislature and therefore, the opposition constantly keeps it alert. For it “always lives within the shadow of a coming defeat.” As Laski factors out, in a Presidential democracy the President does no longer must worry any opposition due to the fact he is not responsible to the legislature. it is able to make him autocratic. therefore Esmein calls the gadget “autocratic, irresponsible and perilous.” So, wouldn't it be advisable for us handy over the future of our considerable u . s . a . with considerable assets and population to the whims and caprices of a dictatorial President?
seeing that the general public celebration or a majority coalition of several events comes to energy in a Parliamentary democracy, there's sure to be co-operation and concord among the government and the Legislature. It ensures smooth implementation of plans and regulations of the ruling birthday celebration for it can have its own way, irrespective of what the opposition parties within the Lok Sabha say.in the Presidential form, at the opposite, the system of separation of powers between the executive and Legislature regularly ends in war: more so, if these wings of the government are controlled via specific parties. This ends in put off, confusion and procrastination. consequently, it's miles advisable for us to keep with the present system which has team spirit of duty, route and power.
it's far continually feasible to dispose of a failed top Minister and update him with a new in a position and applicable man or woman as in keeping with the desires of the human beings. This befell in the uk in the course of global struggle II when Chamberlain proved to be a timid high Minister and Churchill changed him with none commutation taking area. but a President cannot be accordingly removed earlier than the expiry of his tenure besides by means of an extremely difficult process of Impeachment. as a result this gadget being rigid does no longer mildew itself without difficulty to abusing circumstances. consequently, there is no factor in having a Presidential democracy where even a personality non grata has to be tolerated for the remaining tenure of his office.
why did india opt for parliamentary system of government ?
https://brainly.in/question/3954248
Describe the parliamentary form of government
https://brainly.in/question/16526357
#SPJ3