Laxmikanth Summary: Parliamentary System

Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Features of Parliamentary Government
3. Features of Presidential Government
4. Merits of the Parliamentary System
5. Demerits of the Parliamentary System
6. Reasons for Adopting the Parliamentary System in India
7. Distinctions between the Indian and British Models of Parliamentary Government
View more

Introduction

The Constitution of India establishes a parliamentary form of government at both the Union and State levels. The relationship between the executive and the legislature determines whether a democratic government follows a parliamentary or a presidential model. Articles 74 and 75 of the Constitution deal with the parliamentary system at the Centre, while Articles 163 and 164 deal with the states.

• In a parliamentary system the executive is collectively responsible to the legislature and is drawn from it; the executive must command the confidence of the legislature.
• The parliamentary model is also called cabinet government, responsible government or the Westminster model; it is followed in countries such as the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada and India.
• In a presidential system the executive is separate from the legislature, is not responsible to it, and generally serves for a fixed term; the United States, Brazil and Russia use presidential systems.
• Ivor Jennings described the parliamentary arrangement as the cabinet system because of the central role of the cabinet. Traditionally the Prime Minister was regarded as primus inter pares (first among equals); however, over time the office has become more dominant, giving rise to what is often termed prime-ministerial government.

Features of Parliamentary Government

Nominal and Real Executives

The parliamentary model distinguishes between the nominal (formal) executive and the real (actual) executive.

• The President (or Governor in a state) acts as the nominal executive and is the ceremonial head of state.
• The Prime Minister (or Chief Minister at the state level) is the real executive, leading the Council of Ministers and exercising executive authority in practice.
• Article 74 provides for a Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister to aid and advise the President; constitutional practice requires the President to act on this advice.

Majority Party Rule

The formation and stability of the government depend on legislative majority.

• The political party or coalition that secures a majority in the Lok Sabha normally forms the Union government.
• The Prime Minister is appointed from leaders of the majority party or coalition; other ministers are appointed on the Prime Minister's advice.

Lok Sabha

Collective Responsibility

Collective responsibility is a fundamental principle of parliamentary government.

• The Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha for its policies and actions.
• If the Lok Sabha passes a vote of no confidence, the entire ministry must resign.

Political Homogeneity

• Ministers are usually drawn from the same political party or coalition, which promotes ideological coherence in policy-making.
• In coalition governments, decisions are taken by consensus among partner parties to preserve unity.

Double Membership

• Ministers normally hold seats in the legislature and thus combine executive and legislative functions.
• A non-member may be appointed as a minister but must become a member of Parliament within six months; failure to do so results in cessation of ministerial office.

Leadership of the Prime Minister

• The Prime Minister leads the Council of Ministers, coordinates government policy, and usually commands the majority in Parliament.
• The Prime Minister also plays a central role within the ruling party and in relations between the Union and the states.

Dissolution of the Lower House

• The Prime Minister can advise the President to dissolve the Lok Sabha, which leads to fresh general elections.
• This power allows the executive to seek a fresh popular mandate or to pre-empt a hostile legislature, subject to constitutional conventions and presidential discretion in exceptional circumstances.

Secrecy

• Ministers are bound by the convention of secrecy regarding cabinet deliberations and sensitive government decisions.
• Ministers take an oath to keep certain matters confidential, preserving collective cabinet responsibility and candid discussion.

Features of Presidential Government

The presidential model exemplified by the United States differs markedly from the parliamentary system in structure and accountability.

• The President is both the head of state and the head of government, concentrating ceremonial and executive roles in one office.
• Presidents are elected (in the USA through an Electoral College) for a fixed term-commonly four years-and are removable only by impeachment for serious constitutional violations.
• The President is assisted by a cabinet and advisers; some advisors (the so-called Kitchen Cabinet) may be informal and not be members of the legislature.
• The President and cabinet members do not sit in the legislature and are not accountable to it in the same way as in a parliamentary system; they do not attend regular legislative sittings or vote there.
• The President cannot dissolve the lower house of the legislature (for example, the House of Representatives in the United States).
• The presidential system is founded on the doctrine of separation of powers: the legislature, executive and judiciary are constitutionally distinct and mutually check each other.

Merits of the Parliamentary System

• Harmony between legislature and executive: As the executive is drawn from the legislature, there is generally greater co-operation and fewer institutional clashes between the two branches.
• Responsible government: Ministers are directly accountable to Parliament; mechanisms such as question hour, no-confidence motions, and debates ensure scrutiny and public accountability.
• Prevents despotism: Collective decision-making in the cabinet diffuses power among ministers and subjects the executive to parliamentary checks, reducing the risk of arbitrary rule.
• Ready alternative government: If the ruling ministry loses confidence, an alternative majority may form a government without fresh elections, enabling continuity of governance.
• Wide representation: The cabinet can include ministers from different regions, communities and political groups, promoting inclusive governance and diverse viewpoints in decision-making.

Demerits of the Parliamentary System

Unstable Government

• Governments depend on the confidence of the legislature and may fall due to no-confidence motions, defections or coalition breakdowns, producing instability.
• India has experienced short-lived governments (for example, those led by Morarji Desai and Chandra Shekhar), illustrating the vulnerability of coalition or minority ministries.

No Continuity of Policies

• Frequent changes in governments can disrupt long-term planning and lead to policy reversals; transitions between parties (for example, between the Janata and Congress regimes) have sometimes seen abrupt shifts in policy direction.

Dictatorship of the Cabinet

• When a single party holds an overwhelming majority, the cabinet may dominate Parliament and face fewer checks, risking concentration of power.
• Periods in Indian history associated with strong executive domination include the tenures of Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, when critics argued that the executive exercised excessive control.

Morarji Desai

Against Separation of Powers

• The fusion of executive and legislative functions in a parliamentary system departs from a strict separation of powers; the cabinet usually controls the legislative agenda, creating a close overlap of roles.

Government by Amateurs

• Ministers are usually chosen from among elected legislators and may lack specialised administrative or technical expertise, which can affect policy implementation.
• The restriction on appointing non-parliamentarians as ministers (they must secure a seat within six months) limits the pool of specialists who can be directly inducted into government leadership.
• Parliamentary and party duties can also divert ministers' time from detailed administrative supervision.

Reasons for Adopting the Parliamentary System in India

During the Constituent Assembly debates various models were considered, including the American presidential system. The framers, however, chose a modified British parliamentary model for several reasons:

• Familiarity: Constitutional drafters and Indian political leaders were more familiar with the parliamentary system due to British rule; they found it practical and well-tested in the Indian context.
• Preference for responsibility: Dr B.R. Ambedkar emphasised that the parliamentary system, though less rigidly stable than the presidential model, offered greater responsibility of the executive to the legislature-an important democratic safeguard.
• Avoidance of legislative-executive conflict: The framers wanted to minimise prolonged conflict between the legislature and executive, a problem observed in some presidential systems; the parliamentary form was seen as more conducive to co-operative government.
• Nature of Indian society: Given India's diversity, a parliamentary executive that could accommodate multiple parties, regions and social groups was seen as better suited to ensure broad representation and national cohesion.
• Views of constitutional actors: Leaders such as K.M. Munshi argued that India's administrative and political practices had become parliamentary over decades, making change unnecessary and potentially disruptive.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar 

Distinctions between the Indian and British Models of Parliamentary Government

• Republic vs Monarchy: India is a republic with an elected President as head of state; Britain is a constitutional monarchy with a hereditary monarch.
• Written Constitution and Parliamentary Sovereignty: In Britain Parliament is sovereign. In India Parliament's powers are limited by a written Constitution, federal structure, judicial review and fundamental rights.
• Membership of the Prime Minister: In Britain the Prime Minister must be a member of the House of Commons. In India the Prime Minister may be a member of either House of Parliament (Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha), although conventionally the leader comes from the Lok Sabha.
• Ministers and non-members: In Britain ministers are normally members of Parliament. In India a non-member can be appointed minister but must become a member of Parliament within six months, failing which they cease to be a minister.
• Legal responsibility and countersignature: British practice involves the legal responsibility of ministers and formal conventions such as countersigning certain acts of the Head of State. In India similar conventions operate but the practice and legal form differ because of constitutional provisions and written statutes.
• Shadow Cabinet: The British opposition often organises a shadow cabinet to scrutinise the government and prepare for office; such a formalised shadow cabinet is not a constitutional feature of the Indian parliamentary system, though opposition parties may maintain informal shadow spokesmen.

British Monarchy Symbol