Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Presidential Form of Government Needed in India

Presidential Form of Government Needed in India

Ratings: (0)|Views: 775|Likes:
Published by Uma Kalyani

More info:

Published by: Uma Kalyani on Apr 14, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/19/2012

pdf

text

original

 
PRESIDENTIAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT NEEDED IN INDIA.
A
presidential system
is asystem of governmentwhere anexecutive branchexists and
presides
(hence the name) separately from thelegislature, to which it isnotresponsibleand which cannot, in normal circumstances,dismissit.
[1]
 The concept of separate spheres of influence of the executive and legislature isspecified in theConstitution of the United States, with the creation of the officeof President of the United Stateselected separately from Congress.Although not exclusive torepublics, and applied in the case of semi-constitutionalmonarchies where a monarch exercises power (both ashead of stateand chief of theexecutive branchof government) alongside a legislature, the term is often associatedwith republican systems in theAmericas.
 
Thepresidentdoes not proposebills. However, the president has the power  tovetoacts of the legislature and, in turn, asupermajorityof legislators may act to override the veto. This practice is derived from theBritishtradition of royal assentin 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 andcannot be triggered by avote of confidenceor other such parliamentary procedures.In some countries, there is an exception to this rule, which provides for the removalof a president who is found to have broken a law.
 
The executive branch is unipersonal. Members of thecabinetserve at the pleasureof the president and must carry out the policies of the executive and legislativebranches. However, presidential systems frequently require legislative approval of presidential nominations to the cabinet as well as various governmental posts suchasjudges. A president generally has power to direct members of the cabinet, militaryor any officer or employee of the executive branch, but generally has no power todismiss or give orders to judges.
 
The power topardonor commutesentences of convicted criminals is often in the hands of the heads of state in governments that separate their legislative andexecutive branches of government.Countries that feature a presidential system of government are not the exclusive usersof the title of 
resident 
or the republican form of government. For example, adictator ,
 
who may or may not have been popularly or legitimately elected may be and often iscalled a president. Likewise, many parliamentary democracies are republics and havepresidents, but this position is largely ceremonial; notable examplesincludeGermany,India,Ireland,IsraelandPortugal(seeParliamentary republic).
IT HAS been decades since India has been bleeding heavily, sometimes fromexternal enemies and many a times from internal elements but muchneeded change for India has always remained a distant dream. If we startcollecting the reasons, there are many and the fact remains the same "thediplomacy".The Mumbai attacks are just the next event of the series being drawn longback by extremists but for blindfolded politicians it has always been a blamegame. Who is at fault - people, politicians, or the current form of government? I think collectively all. We people in real terms should put thecheckpoints in front of government and should control them but we havebeen their slaves due to our indifferent ¶chalta hai¶ attitude and selfishmotive of what I have got to do with it. Politicians with their timid visionknow only how to save their chair through diplomacy, communalism andmixing honey with their words while addressing people.The problem with them is that neither do they speak wrong nor do they doany right. And next is whether the current form of government is suitable forIndia?? We are one of the greatest democracies of the world which has aparliamentary form of government but unfortunately we don¶t have even asingle political party of national stature. One has influence either on a regionor a caste. This has led to the division of country in the form of vote bankand national security has been put on hold. During election time, electiontickets are issued to the son, wife or kins of the influential politicians andmeritocracy 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) butthe Prime Minister in India cannot include the people on the basis of abilitiesdue to political pressure or withdrawal of support. He is forced to choosebest among the worst. Now the time has come for India to shift fromParliamentary form to the Presidential form of government. Only then willwe be able to choose the best person to bring change and make our longawaited dreams a reality.Let the intelligent and educated people from excellent educationalbackground like that of Harvard run this country so that we too can reap the
 
advantages in all fields like education , employment, health, income andnational security of course like USA has been over the ages.India got independence in 1947. At that time Indians adopted parliamentaryform of Government. This was similar to that in Great Britain. This systemhas served India well for some decades. But does it continue doing thatnow? Are Indians blocking their progress with parliamentary form of Government? This is a question that is being asked many times and no bodyhas 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 hasparliamentary system fared in last ten years? It requires discussion.During last decade India has been having coalition governments. A smallgroup whose support is vital to its survival can dictate this kind of government. A party with about ten MPs can make the government do whatit wants. Let us talk of the nuclear deal. There is a general view that Indiawill benefit with it. But the strong opposition from left has made itimpossible to go ahead. Why is the left opposing it- because it is beingoffered by the USA. Had it been offered by China or Russia, left would haveagreed 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 everyprogress possible. This would not have been possible if India hadPresidential Form Of Government.

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
rajmamatha liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->