PRESIDENTIAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT NEEDED IN INDIA.

A presidential system is a system of government where anexecutive branch exists

and presides (hence the name) separately from the legislature, to which it is
not responsibleand which cannot, in normal circumstances, dismiss it.[1]

The concept of separate spheres of influence of the executive and legislature is

specified in the Constitution of the United States, with the creation of the office
of President of the United States elected separately from Congress.

Although not exclusive to republics, and applied in the case of semi-constitutional

monarchies where a monarch exercises power (both as head of state and chief of
theexecutive branch of government) alongside a legislature, the term is often associated
with republican systems in theAmericas.

 The president does not propose bills. However, the president has the power

to veto acts of the legislature and, in turn, a supermajority of legislators may act to
override the veto. This practice is derived from the British tradition ofroyal assent in
which an act of parliament cannot come into effect without the assent of
themonarch.
 The president has a fixed term of office. Elections are held at scheduled times
and cannot be triggered by a vote of confidence or other such parliamentary
procedures. In some countries, there is an exception to this rule, which provides for
the removal of a president who is found to have broken a law.
 The executive branch is unipersonal. Members of the cabinet serve at the
pleasure of the president and must carry out the policies of the executive and
legislative branches. However, presidential systems frequently require legislative
approval of presidential nominations to the cabinet as well as various governmental
posts such as judges. A president generally has power to direct members of the
cabinet, military or any officer or employee of the executive branch, but generally
has no power to dismiss or give orders to judges.
 The power to pardon or commute sentences of convicted criminals is often in the
hands of the heads of state in governments that separate their legislative and
executive branches of government.
Countries that feature a presidential system of government are not the exclusive users
of the title of President or the republican form of government. For example, a dictator,
who may or may not have been popularly or legitimately elected may be and often is
called a president. Likewise, many parliamentary democracies are republics and have
presidents, but this position is largely ceremonial; notable examples
include Germany, India, Ireland, Israel and Portugal (seeParliamentary republic).
IT HAS been decades since India has been bleeding heavily, sometimes from
external enemies and many a times from internal elements but much
needed change for India has always remained a distant dream. If we start
collecting the reasons, there are many and the fact remains the same "the
diplomacy".

The Mumbai attacks are just the next event of the series being drawn long
back by extremists but for blindfolded politicians it has always been a blame
game. Who is at fault - people, politicians, or the current form of
government? I think collectively all. We people in real terms should put the
checkpoints in front of government and should control them but we have
been their slaves due to our indifferent ’chalta hai’ attitude and selfish
motive of what I have got to do with it. Politicians with their timid vision
know only how to save their chair through diplomacy, communalism and
mixing honey with their words while addressing people.

The problem with them is that neither do they speak wrong nor do they do
any right. And next is whether the current form of government is suitable for
India?? We are one of the greatest democracies of the world which has a
parliamentary form of government but unfortunately we don’t have even a
single political party of national stature. One has influence either on a region
or a caste. This has led to the division of country in the form of vote bank
and national security has been put on hold. During election time, election
tickets are issued to the son, wife or kins of the influential politicians and
meritocracy has been put far behind. Parties may include even criminals if
they find that their vote bank will benefit. In such a bureaucratic form of
government how can one expect a change which is the need of the hour?

Barack Obama can form his cabinet (which includes the noble laureates) but
the Prime Minister in India cannot include the people on the basis of abilities
due to political pressure or withdrawal of support. He is forced to choose
best among the worst. Now the time has come for India to shift from
Parliamentary form to the Presidential form of government. Only then will
we be able to choose the best person to bring change and make our long
awaited dreams a reality.

Let the intelligent and educated people from excellent educational

background like that of Harvard run this country so that we too can reap the
advantages in all fields like education , employment, health, income and
national security of course like USA has been over the ages.

India got independence in 1947. At that time Indians adopted parliamentary

form of Government. This was similar to that in Great Britain. This system

has served India well for some decades. But does it continue doing that

now? Are Indians blocking their progress with parliamentary form of

Government? This is a question that is being asked many times and no body

has the guts to discuss about this in parliament and go ahead with change if

found suitable. Why- because all parties feel that with Presidential Form Of

Government they will lose whatever clout they have in government. How has

parliamentary system fared in last ten years? It requires discussion.

During last decade India has been having coalition governments. A small

group whose support is vital to its survival can dictate this kind of

government. A party with about ten MPs can make the government do what

it wants. Let us talk of the nuclear deal. There is a general view that India

will benefit with it. But the strong opposition from left has made it

impossible to go ahead. Why is the left opposing it- because it is being

offered by the USA. Had it been offered by China or Russia, left would have

agreed to the deal even if it were not in national interest. In the garb of

national interest, left parties are enjoying a huge ego trip and blocking every

progress possible. This would not have been possible if India had Presidential

Form Of Government.
Today the Prime Minister looks without any power to do anything except

having non stop talks with the left and trying to convince them. The left

parties threaten to withdraw support every other day but do not do so. They

are playing a waiting game that will ultimately show the Government in a

very bad light. But the situation is so complex that Congress party does not

know what it should do. It is a tragedy of highest proportion.