Presidential or Parliamentary System in India
There are varied opinions regarding which system of government to be adopted in India:Parliamentary or Presidential.This question emerges from political instability,policy indecision,governance issues that the country is experiencing today.Both types of government has its own advantages and demerits and needs to be examined,judged and implemented keeping the size,nature ,history and its issues.
Parliamentary or Westminster System envisages an council of ministers who are also members of country's legislature and headed by Prime Minister who is the real working head of executive.In this system,head of state or president can either be monarch as in Britain or constitutional head like India.Emphasis in this type of system is on responsibility with the council of ministers as a whole responsible to Parliament.
While in Presidential System,President is the head of state and working head of executive.She chooses her team of executive from amongst citizens and is nearly irremovable during her whole term.The parliament will focus on making laws while executive's job is to implement the laws and administer the system.Main characteristic of this system is stability of law enforcing body.
Situation in India:
In India,various cases are presented regarding the parliamentary system like:
1 The elected members of council of ministers have no formal training of administration and governance and hence actually administration is being run by bureaucrats and politicians have to heavily rely upon them.
2 Since ministers are at same time also member of parliament,they have dual job of framing legislation and afterwards implementing it resulting in diversion of time,energy and resources
3 India with its platitudes of diversity have number of political parties and at national stage often leads to formation of coalition government with razor thin majority at Centre.Hence most of time government is busy appeasing parties and maintaining its majority in Parliament therefore diverting its attention from governance of country.
4 India borrowed Parliamentary System from Britain where are only two national parties unlike India leading to mostly stable and predictable administration and at same time responsible to Parliament also.
If presidential system is adopted in India,it will give stability to the government but it will also take away the element of responsibility from the system which our predecessors so endeared and acquaint with.In terms of BR Ambedkar ,if we have to chose between stability and responsibility we will go with latter one as after so many years of subjugation we can't afford our freedom to lose once again and also we have experience in running parliamentary system of government.Presidential system grants too much power in hands of one individual which will be contrary to visions of founding fathers of our nation.Also then political parties will also not get chance to participate in governance of nation and states and hence will not be sufficiently motivated to involve in the proceedings of legislatures.
For achieving stability of government for better governance while maintaining responsibility towards Parliament,there is need to enforce certain electoral and political discipline among parties.All political parties and independent members should be required to declare name of political parties which they will join to form coalition government in case they didn't get majority and any change after elections are over should be refused by law.Also ministers like bureaucrats should be given some training regarding general administration and polity issues so as to reduce overdependence on government officials.Inner party democracy like well defined constitution for party,non-issuance of tickets to criminals and mischievous elements will help in better representation of parliament and its smooth conduct and will give more space and time to government for administration.
There is need to accommodate both features of system viz stability and responsibility by taking innovative solutions so that we do not discontinue the institutions and systems which are running for so long time and at same we should also accommodate modern need for better governance and legislation.