Description
Context:
Recent issues of switching of MLA in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh is the indication that parliamentary system in India is not working.
Reasons:
- Our parliamentary system has created a unique breed of legislator, who has sought election only in order to wield executive power.
- Produced governments dependent on a fickle legislative majority.
- Obliged government to focus more on politics than on policy or performance.
- Distorted the voting preferences of an electorate.
- Spawned parties that are shifting alliances of selfish individual interests, not vehicles of coherent sets of ideas.
- Forced governments to concentrate less on governing than on staying in office.
- Obliged governments to cater to the lowest common denominator of their coalitions.
- Politicians do not want to change the system because they know how to work the present system and do not wish to alter the ways they are used to.
- The parliamentary system devised in Britain is based on traditions which simply do not exist in India.
- Voter’s preference is usually based on the basis of their caste, their public image or other personal qualities.
- India’s many challenges require political arrangements that permit decisive action, whereas ours increasingly promotes drift and indecision.
Requirement of Parliamentary System:
- Clearly defined political parties, each with a coherent set of policies and preferences that distinguish it from the next.
- Voters preference based on parties than on individual candidates.
Challenges of Parliamentary System:
- It limits executive posts to those who are electable rather than to those who are able. The prime minister cannot appoint a cabinet of his choice; he has to cater to the wishes of the political leaders of several parties.
- It puts a premium on defections and horse-trading.
- Poor Quality of Legislation: Most laws are drafted by the executive — in practice by the bureaucracy — and parliamentary input into their formulation and passage is minimal, with very many bills being passed after barely a few minutes of debate.
- The parliamentary system does not permit the existence of a legislature distinct from the executive, applying its collective mind freely to the nation’s laws.
- For those parties who do not get into government Parliament or Assembly serves not as a solemn deliberative body, but as a theatre for the demonstration of their power to disrupt.
Case for Presidential System:
- A directly elected chief executive in New Delhi and in each state, would have stability of tenure free.
- Ability to appoint the cabinet ministers of talent.
- Devote his or her energies to governance.
- Vote directly for the individual.
- President will truly be able to claim to speak for a majority of Indians rather than a majority of MPs.
- The public would be able to judge the individual on performance in improving the lives of Indians, rather than on political skill at keeping a government in office.
- The same logic would apply to the directly elected heads of our towns and cities.
Presidential form of government:
- A presidential system is a system of government where a head of government is also head of states and leads an executive branch that is separate from legislative branch.
- Presidents take more direct personal charge of policy than the cabinet does in a parliamentary system.
Reference: https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/rajasthan-political-crisis-parliamentary-system-shashi-tharoor-6522100/
