Laxmikanth Summary: Presidential System | Indian Polity for UPSC CSE PDF Download

A debate has been going on whether government of India  should be switched over from the Parliamentary system to the Presidential system in which the President is directly elected for a fixed tenure. He functions as the nation's chief executive, unhampered by the Legislature in taking administrative decisions.

Why India Opted For Parliamentary System?

Our founding fathers opted for parliamentary system due to three major reasons. First, India was accustomed to this system and thus it would suit the conditions of this country better, second, to avoid the rifts between the executive and legislature common in the US; and third, the continental vastness of the country and the diversity of its culture. They did consider the Presidential form also, but discarded it as being too reminiscent of the kings and emperors who had given us a taste of feudal governance. Hence, the choice of system was adopted after careful consideration. A suggestion was canvassed during the drafting of the Constitution as to whether the President should have a committee of advisers, like the Privy Council, separate from the Council of Ministers.

B.N. Rau who played a very important part in the drafting of the Constitution suggested that the Constitution should provide for a Council and whose advice would be available to the President whenever he chose to obtain it in matters of national importance in which he is required to act in his discretion. This suggestion ultimately did not find favour.

Failures of Parliamentary System

• The success and failure of a system depends mainly upon the equality and calibre of the human material which operates it.
• Our political system worked quite well during the first decade following independence, largely because of the dominance of powerful personalities then at the helm of affairs.
• Political life in the country has fallen below standards.
• There has been a rapid decline in moral and ethical values in the recent past.
• Horse trading, shifting of loyalties for personal pelf and profits, and bargaining for offices are prevalent among our leaders.
• Our leaders are engaged in raising party funds by questionable means.
• The experience of the last 20 years has shown that the present parliamentary form has ceased to function properly.
• Prime Ministers have come and gone in rapid succession.
• General elections have failed to return any one party with an overall majority.
• Elected MPs and MLAs are up for sale.
• Despite laws against defection, party hopping has become a common practice.
• Parliament is not functioning with the degree of competence or commitment that it is primarily meant to do: legislate.
• Barring exceptions, those who are elected to the apex democratic institution are neither trained in law-making nor do they seem to have an inclination to develop the necessary knowledge and competence.
• At times, Parliament resembles an akhara (arena for wrestling bouts).
• There is large-scale criminalisation of politics and subversion of the electoral system by money power, muscle power, and vote bank considerations.

Case For Presidential System

After the virtual end of the one-party dominance (That of Congress Party) at the centre, a debate is going on to change over to Presidential system of government. Following features favour Presidential system.

• The nation will no longer face a hung situation for its governance.
• The President will last for a full term and the government will be stable.
• The President will have the distinct advantage of choosing his ministerial team from among the best available.
• The President will be directly elected by the people and responsible to them.
• The people's power will be concentrated in the hands of a capable President and exercised through an able cabinet.
• This system will help to develop resources, generate income, and utilize it in the most cost-effective manner.
• A President's Cabinet will consist of hand-picked men whom he can hire and fire.
• The Cabinet will be compact and dynamic, with quality performance being its hallmark.
• There may be no need for a Prime Minister, thus avoiding two centres of power.
• The Presidential form will separate legislators from executives and prevent an unwieldy Cabinet.
• The system will induce parties to nominate candidates of proven merit and ability.
• Firmness in decision-making and meticulous implementation will be salient features of governance.
• Resources now wasted on unproductive pursuits will be saved.
• The number of parties and candidates will be reduced, preventing non-serious candidates from entering.
• Elections will be held at regular intervals with no need for mid-term polls.

Case Against Presidential System 

• A political system based on merits alone is insufficient for a country's needs.
• Social, economic, political, and cultural factors must be considered in constitutional changes.
• A mere shift in systems will not suffice without considering all relevant factors.
• Under a presidential system, ministerial appointments may not be based solely on merits.
• Ideological considerations can influence political decisions in a presidential system.
• Sycophancy may become prevalent under a presidential system.
• The majority of voters in India are illiterate, affecting their ability to evaluate presidential candidates.
• Dishonest politicians may exploit the illiteracy of voters.
• A presidential form of government can dilute federalism and lead to centralization of power.
• Extreme centralization can cause a lack of accountability and promote arrogance.
• Excessive power is often not subject to checks and balances.
• Central authoritarianism can lead to national fragmentation.
• Pakistan serves as a glaring example of the dangers of centralization.
• Bangladesh and Sri Lanka faced disintegration under similar regimes.
• Idi Amin, Zia-ul-Haq, and Ferdinand Marcos did not come to power through elections.
• All these leaders were removed either by death or coup.
• Marcos amassed wealth, while Nixon was involved in the Watergate scandal.
• John F. Kennedy's decision to invade Cuba faced significant criticism.
• During Lyndon Johnson's term, an invasion of Vietnam bypassed Parliament.
• In contrast, in our parliamentary system, Indira Gandhi was ousted in 1977 and re-elected in 1980.
• History shows that presidential systems often lead to dictatorship.
• The Third World has endured severe tyranny under presidential systems.
• Concerns about the presidential system relate to its impact on politicians' bargaining power.
• Eliminating the need for majority support in Parliament may benefit political stability.
• The presidential system could end the cattle-fair politics prevalent today.
• Ultimately, it may lead to governmental stability.

Conclusion

Except in few countries, the Parliamentary system has failed. But the democratic Presidential system has even fewer successes to boast. Latin American systems, influenced by the US Presidential system, have tended to become dictatorships.

There is nothing basically wrong with our system. Our Constitution does not need any fundamental transformation. What this country needs is not systemic change, but such practical reforms as will create an ordered state. For realizing this objective, the following measures are suggested:

• Opposition is given its rightful place, ensuring its fuller participation in parliamentary life.
• Widening the opportunities for private members to bring up matters of public importance before the House.
• Review of the existing procedure related to legislative and financial business to enhance Parliament's effectiveness.
• Exercise of continuous control of the Administration through a well-devised committee system.
• Provision of a Secretariat for Parliament that is independent of the Executive, staffed by specially recruited and trained personnel.
• Providing opportunities and facilities for specialization to members to increase their effectiveness.
• Concurrent telecast of Parliamentary proceedings.
• Provision of training for MPs and MLAs.
• Implementation of automatic voting.