Parliamentary Vs Presidential System Which suits best for India

Parliamentary Vs Presidential System Which suits best for India now?

What is Parliamentary and Presidential system?
Modern democratic governments are classified into parliamentary and presidential system based on the nature of relation between the legislature and executive organs of the government. In parliamentary system, executives are part of legislature and they are responsible to the elected representatives for the policies (based on principle of collective responsibility) whereas in presidential system both are organs are separated and executives are not responsible to the legislature (based on the principle of separation of powers).

Merits of Parliamentary system:

1. Responsible government

2. Harmony between legislature and executive

3. Wider representation
Demerits:

4. Unstable government

2. Government by amateurs
Merits of Presidential system:

6. Stable government

2. Government by experts

3. Speed and decisive in policy making
Demerits:

9. Non-responsible government

2. Conflict between legislature and executive

3. Narrow representation

4. May lead to autocracy

Why Parliamentary system was chosen for India?
India was familiarized with the parliamentary system under British rule that followed the parliamentary system. So it would be easy for us to get used to the system than adopting a new system at that time when India was faced with high illiteracy and to avoid unnecessary confusion among people.
Also when there was option to choose between parliamentary and presidential system, it was based on the merits of the parliamentary system, our framers of the constitution preferred parliamentary system for its collective responsibility rather than the stability of the presidential and it was Ambedkar who pointed out in constituent assembly that, unfortunately there was no system to have both stability and responsibility at equal levels. Will see how these merits for which parliamentary system chosen had become danger in itself.
They wanted wider representation because of our countrys diversified nature so that the elected representative could highlight the issues and demands of their constituencies.
They wanted a harmonious relation between legislative and executive organs of the government so that development could be carried out smoothly and quickly rather than the confliction between the two organs hindering the development process.

What is the issue with the prevailing system (parliamentary) in India?
The system is embroiled with huge corruption, lot of scams, and policy paralysis in recent years because of lack of proper accountability and responsibility thus hampering the developmental process. Also the increased intervention by the Supreme Court in the executive and legislative functions due to improper functioning of these organs.
Firstly, the corruption could have been avoided greatly if the political executives are vigilant enough in monitoring the implementation of the schemes and punishing the permanent executives for their neglect and mistakes. It is due to their lack of professionalism and lack of management skills (due to amateurism), the lower level bureaucracies engaged in illegal practices. Moreover the political executives itself involved in huge corruption which goes unnoticed most of the time.
Secondly, the principle of collective responsibility itself is undermined. The improper functioning of the executives is not questioned effectively in the parliament due to the very concept of formation of government based on majority party ruling. MP or MLA supporting to ruling party would never question the governments decisions fear of losing his party ticket. Opposition party member when they does not have enough numbers are ineffective in questioning. Even when they question they are over ridden easily. Thus whenever a bill is put to vote, the ruling party is able to make it easily with their numbers, not to say when there is absolute majority. In 1931, Lloyd George, British PM told, "Parliament has really no control over the executive; it is a pure fiction."
Thirdly, the wider representation of people is also to be questioned particularly with the North-Eastern states and other smaller states whose support is not needed with their lesser numbers for forming the government are not equitably represented and unable to raise their grievances in a formal manner, thus resorting to violent methods. Moreover people do not elect their representatives based on his/her merit and quality, but based on the party he/she belongs to. If this happens, how could they represent their constituency in a proper way addressing their grievances? They would only be loyal to the party head.
Fourthly, due to inability in representing Indias diversity, the emergence of regional parties and coalition politics comes to play a major role. Though it is a very welcome one, rather than playing the advantageous role of giving constructive inputs of various regions and the development of the country, it has been playing the negative role of capturing power and thus hampering the decision making process and policy deliberation resulting in stagnation (policy paralysis).
Fifthly, smaller parties having major say in the formation of government, they try to capture more power and demand portfolios for their candidates irrespective of their capability and quality. These candidates are involving in huge corruption and other criminal activities. These candidates becoming Union ministers because of the influence of coalition politics have not spoken a single word in parliament. For example, Union minister for fertilizers and chemicals Mr.Alagiri from DMK. Also every regional party wanted their demands to be met and when it is not done so they withdraw their support to the government frequently leading to fall of the government (instability). Otherwise the countrys development is compromised for the sake of power. Countries like Italy, Australia, Japan are very good examples other than India facing frequent instability.
Sixthly, the very harmonious relation between the legislature and executives resulted in the lack of accountability and the executives are not questioned in the parliament by the legislatures who are trying to retain their support to the government and thus enjoying illegal benefits.

What is the current trend?
People elect their representatives not based on the individuals track record, but based on the major party (Congress or BJP, DMK or ADMK, SP or BSP, etc.) or the charisma of the partys individual (Rahul Vs Modi, Karunanidhi Vs Jayalalitha, Yadav Vs Mayawathi). This resembles the presidential candidatures of two parties.
People if truly elect their representatives, then they must be empowered to recall those elected representatives whenever found to be corrupt, inefficient and not responsive to their demands. But as Quraishi (former chief election commissioner) said such a recall method is very difficult to implement in such a large country like India.
Frequent conflict between the Centre and the States as States feel their autonomy is undermined. Recent examples such as Food security bill, NCTC, etc. This could be avoided by following the USA model of complete federation as the regional parties have larger say than the national parties in many states.
For a large and diversified country like India, it is highly difficult to run the government with more of centralization. There should be more autonomy given to the states and only the matters related to national problems to be retained by the Centre similar to that of USA model. Even Rajaji supported the cabinet mission proposal of having a Union with only defence, external affairs, and communication matters and resting all other matters to the States with more autonomy before independence but due to various reasons it was not followed.

Why do we need to choose presidential system?
Presidential system based on separation of powers is the need of the hour for India as the harmonious relation between the executive and legislature is the main cause of corruption in our country. This system also offers good stability as the head of the government is chosen directly by the people and his government is not based on the support from the parties once chosen. Legislatures from both the parties (supporting and opposition) could question the executives decisions as their support is not needed to run the government. Also the policies are deliberated, discussed quickly with expert knowledge and implemented considering only the welfare of the people of the country and not about the power politics.
Also the USA model of representation holds very good where in the Congress lower house represents people based on population and upper house (Senate) represents people based on number of states, thus eliminating regional disparity and maintaining a balance between larger and smaller states.
There are critics that presidential system would lead to autocratic nature but this is avoided with necessary checks and balances like periodic elections every 4yrs and not more than two terms as in USA unlike North African countries where it is extended for decades. Also the executives activities are thoroughly monitored and debated in the parliament and there are independent commissions to check the malpractices and report to the congress. While saying this, in parliamentarian system even cabinet with party having absolute majority may become autocratic (like the one during Indira Gandhi period of Emergency).
Presidential system criticized as narrow in representing peoples opinion in executives decision but legislatures are elected with wider representation that however needs to approve those decisions and policies made by the executives. Hence the wider representation is ensured this way.
Finally it is not that corruption is not present in presidential system but to a lesser extent as executives are directly appointed by president who is again directly responsible to people. But ironically World Banks recent report has stated that corruption is more in Presidential system. Need to check on this as this could be more in the autocratic presidential system than in the democratic one.


Conclusion:
The government thus embroiled with policy paralysis, inability to make decisions because of coalition power politics and corruption because of lack of responsibility and accountability, it is high time to consider to change to presidential or any other alternative system with proper checks and balances for the development of the country. In 1975, a committee was formed under Swaran Singh to consider the necessity of change in the system but he recommended continuing with the existing system then. That could have been said based on the stability enjoyed by the governments till then with congress party majority and lesser role of regional parties and coalition politics and its problems. Moreover nil or very less scams occurred during those days. It was fine our constitution framers chose parliamentary system preferring responsibility than stability during that time of independence because it was one major party, Congress hold the entire country giving less chances of instability and thus wanted to ensure responsibility. Also whatever merits were considered for choosing the parliamentary system, all of them prove to be dangerous now as mentioned above in smooth functioning of the government. But in todays scenario the government needs to constitute another commission to analyze and review the change of the system and yes it will cost huge and have mammoth changes right from rewriting the constitution if decided to shift. Thus we need decisive and stable government to speed up the development process that can be achieved only by choosing presidential system of government.

References:

1. Indian Polity Laxmikanth

2. Wikipedia

3. http://www.gyanunlimited.com/politics/coalition-politics-dynamism-in-india/842/

Name G.Dineshkumar