Why is the parliamentary system more suited to India than the American presidential system? Discuss.
Answers
Answer:
Recently, it has been suggested that India should adopt the presidential form of government instead of the parliamentary style of democracy, inherited from the British.
These suggestions have been given in the backdrop of frequent elections and related administrative as well as financial burden owned by India.
Parliamentary System of Government
There are two executives:
The nominal executive is the head of state e.g. President while the real executive is the Prime Minister, who is the head of government.
In such a system, the role of president or monarch is primarily ceremonial and the Prime Minister along with the cabinet wields effective power.
Countries with such a system include Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom as well as Portugal.
The Constitution of India provides for a parliamentary form of government, both at the Centre and in the States.
Articles 74 and 75 deal with the parliamentary system of government at the Union level and Articles 163 and 164 contain provisions with regard to the States.
Executive is responsible to the legislature for its policies and acts.
Presidential System of Government
There is only one executive.
In this system, the President is both head of state and government, e.g. USA, South Korea etc.
The executive is not responsible to the legislature for its policies and acts, and is constitutionally independent of the legislature in respect of its term of office.