The question of whether a presidential form of government would be better for India is a matter of debate and opinion. India currently operates under a parliamentary system of government, which has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. I believe a mixture of both forms is best for a diverse and populous nation like that of India. But just considering the presidential system, I believe the presidential system can provide more excellent stability because the executive (the president) is elected independently of the legislature. In the book, Accidental Prime Minister, Sanjaya Baru exposes how the UPA-1 worked and the issues the PM had to face due to the coalition nature and the fact that he was dependent on the legislature. This can also lead to more accountability and reduce the likelihood of frequent changes in government.
In the presidential system, the president is directly elected by the people, which can enhance their accountability to the electorate. Voters can hold the president accountable for their performance, and the president's authority is derived from the people's mandate. However, in the parliamentary system, the party in the majority chooses the PM, which means that the person has more responsibility towards the party than the people.
Also, the presidential system could provide more stability during times of political crisis or when the government loses the confidence of the legislature. In a parliamentary system, such situations can lead to the dissolution of the government and snap elections, potentially exacerbating instability. We have seen the example of Italy and Germany in the post-WW1 period and even Pakistan in modern times.
Ultimately, we must realize India is a diverse and pluralistic society with multiple languages, religions, and cultures. Here emphasis must be on consensus-building between different elements of the state.
Srambican
Comments
Post a Comment