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

Introduction

• The Constitution of India establishes a parliamentary form of government at both the central and state levels.
• Articles 74 and 75 focus on the parliamentary system at the Centre, while Articles 163 and 164 pertain to the states.
• Modern democratic governments are categorized into parliamentary and presidential systems based on the relationship between the executive and legislative branches.
• In a parliamentary system, the executive is accountable to the legislature for its actions and policies.
• This system is also known as cabinet government, responsible government, or the Westminster model. It's prevalent in countries like Britain, Japan, Canada, and India.
• On the other hand, a presidential system features an executive that is not accountable to the legislature and has a fixed term of office.
• Countries like the USA, Brazil, Russia, and Sri Lanka employ presidential systems.
• Ivor Jennings referred to the parliamentary system as the 'cabinet system' because the cabinet holds central power.
• The Prime Minister, traditionally seen as 'first among equals' within the cabinet, has gained significant influence in recent times, leading to the term 'prime ministerial government.'
• This shift in power dynamics holds true both in Britain and in India.

Features of Parliamentary Government 

• The President serves as the nominal executive, holding a ceremonial position as the head of state.
• The Prime Minister acts as the real executive, leading the government and making day-to-day decisions.
• Article 74 establishes a council of ministers under the Prime Minister's leadership to assist and advise the President, with the President obligated to follow their advice.

Majority Party Rule

• The political party securing majority seats in the Lok Sabha forms the government.
• The Prime Minister is appointed from the majority party's leader, and other ministers are appointed based on the Prime Minister's advice.
  
  Lok Sabha

Collective Responsibility

• Ministers collectively bear responsibility to Parliament, particularly to the Lok Sabha.
• The principle implies that the Lok Sabha can remove the entire ministry through a vote of no confidence.

Political Homogeneity

• Ministers usually belong to the same political party, ensuring ideological coherence.
• In coalition governments, ministers adhere to consensus decisions.

Double Membership

• Ministers serve as members of both the legislature and the executive, requiring parliamentary membership.
• Failure to maintain parliamentary membership leads to cessation of ministerial position as per constitutional provisions.

Leader of the Prime Minister

• The Prime Minister holds leadership roles in the council of ministers, Parliament, and the ruling party.
• Their significant role is crucial for the functioning of the government.

Dissolution of the Lower House

• The Prime Minister can advise the President to dissolve the Lok Sabha, leading to fresh elections.
• This power allows the executive to dissolve the legislature before its term ends.

Secrecy

• Ministers operate under the principle of secrecy, unable to disclose information about proceedings, policies, and decisions.
• They take an oath of secrecy administered by the President.

Features of Presidential Government 

• The American President has a dual role, serving as both the head of state and the head of government.
• Presidents are elected through an electoral college for a fixed four-year term and can only be removed by impeachment for severe unconstitutional acts.
• Governance is facilitated with the assistance of a cabinet or a smaller advisory body, known as the "Kitchen Cabinet," consisting of non-elected departmental secretaries.
• The President and their secretaries are not accountable to Congress for their actions and do not hold membership or attend its sessions.
• The President lacks the authority to dissolve the House of Representatives, the lower house of Congress.
• The American presidential system is grounded in the doctrine of separation of powers, where the legislative, executive, and judicial branches operate independently.

Merits of the Parliamentary System

• Parliamentary system fosters a cooperative relationship between the legislative and executive branches.
• Both branches work together as the executive is a part of the legislature, reducing conflicts.

Responsible Government

• Ministers in the parliamentary system are accountable to the Parliament for their actions.
• Parliamentary control mechanisms like question hours and no-confidence motions ensure accountability.

Prevents Despotism

• Power is distributed among a group of ministers rather than concentrated in one individual, preventing authoritarian rule.
• Executive's accountability to Parliament, including the possibility of removal via a no-confidence motion, acts as a check against despotism.

Ready Alternative Government

• In the event of the ruling party losing majority support, the opposition can be invited to form a government without the need for fresh elections.
• This ensures continuity of governance and provides a smooth transition of power.

Wide Representation

• The parliamentary executive includes ministers representing various sections and regions, ensuring diverse representation in government.
• The Prime Minister considers representation while selecting ministers, facilitating inclusivity in decision-making.

Demerits of the Parliamentary System

• Parliamentary system lacks stability as governments rely on majority support from legislators, making them vulnerable to no-confidence motions or political defections.
• Examples include short-lived governments headed by various Prime Ministers like Morarji Desai and Chandra Sekhar.

No Continuity of Policies

• Parliamentary systems often lack continuity in long-term policies due to government tenure uncertainties.
• Changes in ruling parties frequently lead to policy reversals, as seen with the Janata and Congress governments in India.

Dictatorship of the Cabinet

• When the ruling party holds a significant majority in Parliament, the cabinet may wield autocratic powers.
• This phenomenon, observed during the eras of Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, allows for potential executive tyranny.
  
  Morarji Desai

Against Separation of Powers

• In parliamentary systems, the legislature and executive branches are closely intertwined.
• The cabinet, acting as both legislative leader and executive, challenges the principle of separation of powers, creating a fusion of authority.

Government by Amateurs

• Parliamentary systems may lack administrative efficiency as ministers may not possess expertise in their fields.
• The Prime Minister's selection of ministers is limited to parliamentary members, potentially overlooking external talent.
• Ministers often dedicate significant time to parliamentary duties, cabinet meetings, and party obligations, impacting administrative effectiveness.

Reason For Adopting the Parliamentary System

A request was made to adopt the US presidential system of government in the Constituent Assembly. However, the founding fathers opted for the British parliamentary system for the following reasons:

Familiarity with the System

• Constitution-makers were acquainted with the parliamentary system from British rule in India.
• K.M. Munshi argued that India's governance traditions had become parliamentary over several decades, advocating against adopting a new system.

Preference for More Responsibility

• Dr. B.R. Ambedkar highlighted the importance of balancing stability and responsibility in a democratic executive.
• He noted that the British parliamentary system offered more responsibility, albeit with less stability, compared to the American presidential system.
  
  Dr. B.R. Ambedkar 

Need to Avoid Legislative-Executive Conflicts

• Framers of the Constitution aimed to prevent conflicts between the legislature and executive, common in the US presidential system.
• They believed such conflicts could hinder India's democratic progress and opted for a system conducive to national development.

Nature of Indian Society

• India's diverse and complex societal makeup influenced the choice of the parliamentary system.
• The system provided better representation for various sections, interests, and regions, fostering national unity and inclusivity.

Distinction Between Indian and British Models

• India operates under a republican system, contrasting the British monarchy where the Head of State (King or Queen) holds a hereditary position.
• Unlike Britain's sovereignty of Parliament, India's Parliament has limited powers due to a written Constitution, federalism, judicial review, and protection of fundamental rights.
• In Britain, the Prime Minister must be a member of the House of Commons, while in India, they can belong to either house of Parliament.
  
  British Monarchy Symbol
• Ministers in Britain are typically members of Parliament, whereas in India, non-members can serve as ministers for a maximum of six months.
• Unlike Britain's legal responsibility of ministers, India lacks such a system, and ministers aren't required to countersign official acts of the Head of State.
• The British system features a "shadow cabinet" to prepare opposition members for future ministerial roles, a concept absent in India's parliamentary system.