PARLIAMENTARY FORM OF GOVERNMENT:

REFORM OR REPLACEMENT?

K YikrmaM Nup
The form of government which Independent Indin bad to
adopt wns one of the most important questlons whch engaged
the atlentlon of the fromers of our Consitulion. After long and
Intensive sludy of the varlous constiutlonal examples, especlal-
ly those of U.K., U.S.A. and Switzerland, ' the Constitue:! As-
scmbly decided on Parliamcnlary form of government, based
on the British model with necessary modiications sultcd to lo
dian conditlons. Thus India. was to havc a Presldent,' Indrect
ly clected for a term of ive yedrs. As in England, there was
to be a council of nministers, headed by the Prime Minister and
cullectively responsible to Parliament, to' nid and ndvisc the
Head of Stale, namcly, the Presldent. The President was to be
the constitutlonal Head of Statc, and the Prinie Ministcr the
real Head of the Executive. The Constituent Assembly madec
this choice in the context of the past and in the needs of the
present and future. India had some familiaritywith the cabinet
government in the past. The neds were strengh und qulck
efcctiveness, for huge sirides in industrial, agricultural and social
development had to be. made and an enormous population well
nnd fnirly governed.
The reasons which prompted the Constitucnt Assembly to
adopt the parliamecniary form wero cogen:ly given by many
of its members. In presenting Ihe Report of. the Union Consti-
lution Commlttce, Sardar Patel sald:
--

". it would suit the conditions of this country beiter

fo odopt the parlamentary system ol constitutlon. ... with
which we are familiar".

The point was made clear by Dr. K. M. Munshi. Hé said:

"We must not forgel a very important fact that, during
the last hundred years Indian public life has largely drawn
upon the traditions ol British Constitutonal law".
 And he asked: that has
traditlon
the
we go back upon
experim
why should a
novel
and try
built for over a hundred years even in
found wanting
ramed 150 years ago and
rica?'a form
Jorm
Parliamentary
adopting the
anolher rcason for Presidential form
was gve
in prclcrence to the in h e
ment Dralt Constitution
Dr. Ambedkar, in introducing the Two
ne
oy the dillcrence between
ASScmbly. While puinting
oul
lorins of government he said:
demiocta-
are of course
oth systems of governmcnt h
not very casy.
lic and the choice bctween the two is
democratic excculive nmust satisfy two conditions:
i (1)
must be a slable executive and (2) it must
be B respon
s0
Sible exccuive. Uofortunately it has nol been possible
lar 1o devise a systcm which cao enso both in cqual
more
degree.... The American and Swiss systcms give
stabilty but less responsibility. The British system on the
other hand gives you more responsibility but less stabi-
lity".10
Further be adds:

"Under the non-parlia meptary syslem, such as the one that

cxists in the U.S.A., the assess ment of the responsibility
of the excutive is peritdic.... In England, where the
parliamentary syslem prevails, the assessmenl of respoosi-
bility of the executive is both daily and periodical. The
daily nssessment is Jone by Members ol Parliunent, thio.
uph qucstions, resolulions, no-confidence motions, adjourn-
ment motivns and debates on Addresses. ..The daily
assessment of responsibility whicb is nol ayailable
the American system is, it is Ielt, far nmore
under
eflective than
the periodic assessmenl (dune by clcctoratc at the
time of
clection) and far more nccessary in a country like India.
 The Dralt Constituion in
systcm of cxecutive has recommending the
parliamentary
more stability". prelerred mofe iesponsibility to
Thus we find that the
was
consciously and Parliamenlary lorm ol
govcroment
Constitulion with deliberatcly
adoptcd
the frm conViction by the makers of the
to Indian conitions that it was betjer suitcd
lhan that of o
ville Austin remarkcd ihe Presidecutial lorm. As Gran
and compclling.1 grounds for the decisiun wcre sound
Bul of lalc,
powerful
voices have been
occasionaly rais
ed ugainst the Parliamentary lorm of
cating the Anericun Presidentiul government and aylvo-
conditions in India. Such vicws form
as more suilable to the
have becn uired in dillerent
political conlcxls on dillerent grounds and with dillcrent
poscs. Jt would be unwise to take uhose voiccs pur
all this necessarily lightly. Hence
compels us to cngage vursclves in a rcappra-
isal of ihe choice thal we have made
wlth icgard lo the form
ol govcrnmeol.

la the
exercise of such a rcappraisal, lel us brst
gather and
pul logelber the various reasoDs given by dillerent people ia
support of their vicw Ihat the preseot system of goveromenl has
miserably failed and so it should be abandoued.

First, it has bècn allegcd ihal the government in a Parlia-

mentary system is prone lo the danger of instability, for the
obvious reason that the cabinct is formed
exclusively oul of the
legislalure and it lalls, in case it loses the latter's conidence.
The instabilily, il has been Said, slems Irom
political delections
and comupions.

Secondly, il bas been sald that io a Parliamenlary lype of

gOvernment, the dependency of the Prime Minister on the legis-
lature for the selection of Ministers denles him the
opportunily
lo induct the best iniclectual alenls available in the natlon into
his cabinct to share the responsibility of administration. Evcn
while sclecting the members of the Cabinet from the
leglslature,
 what is counlcd, more oflen than nol, is the ho:!d a partlcular
meniber possesses in the party rather than his inlcllectual or
adminisirative capacily. Thus the government is deprived of the
services of men who arc beIcr cquippcd with competence, ond

professional expertisc.
the
Cabinct form of governmenl, it is said,
Thirdly, in a
mcmbers of the Cabinct including the Prime Minister wasle
much of their energy and time in Image-building' and In mana-
ging the party allairs, instead of absorbing themselves in the
job of administcring the afairs of the country.
it has been argued that Parliamentary form of
Fourlhly,
government s not suitable to Indla because It. does nal have
awell developed two party system.
Fifthly, the proposals whlch have been made by some peo
ple to have a Presidential fom of government seem to bavc
been based on the bclict that the Presldential form would bring

more cliciency in adminlstralive scrvice sioce it woud facllltate

much more conceniration of powers in the exccutive. The pro
made to consider the suitability Presidential form of
of a
posal
BOvernment 'lo conlain i5siparous tendencics in the various parts
he beliet that.
of the country' appcars to have been made
on

the Presidential forn would provide for more eiclency, Ioitia-

cxeculive.
tive and clfective leadership in the

J is mevitabie thal we should make a choice belween the

allcnatives ol reforim and replacement. Bul belore any
choice
which are
is made, let us consider a few important questions
rcversal of ideas and sys-
perlinent to our choice-making, lor,
our hinking for
lems which bad opuraled ánd had dominated
lime is a serious matter.
such a' long
wbether the
In tbis contcxl,, the irsl queslion thal ariscs is
réasons given by the Constituenl Assembly in adopling a Parlia
Presidential form arc
menlary lorm of goveroment as agaiost
still valid anu relcvan,
 The next question is whelher some countervailing reasons
have come into.existence in the course of years which are sufi-
cient enough to warrant a reconsideration of the choice made by
the Constitueot Assembly.
Regarding the first question, it is submilted that by no
meons con one challenge or deny the validity "of any of those
reasons giveb by the Constituent Assembly. Apart from the his-
torical rea sons such. as the decp rools which this systen hasin
the tradition and heritage of our people, and the familiárity which
we have witb this form of government, perhaps the most out
standing reasons which bear contextual and contemporary rele
vance are: the close co-ordination betweca the legislature and
the executive, and the accountability and responsibility of tbo
executive to the legislature. In a developing country like India
whose coustilutivnal objectivc is to secure lo its peuple no
only political justice but also social and ccononiic justice, a sys-
tcm of government wlhich ensures n close co-ordination between
the cxecutive and the legislature still continues 1o be indispcs-
able. Any lurm of govemoient w lhich is likcly to creatc any rilt
or conflict betwecn the legislalure and cxccutive is sure to prove
lo be a national disaster, especially in view of the' magnitude ol
socio-tconomic problems and political turmoils wlhich confrot
the nation today. Aso as regarls the responsibility of the exe
culive 1o. Ihe legislaturc, it is submitted that this aspect of the
Parliamentory systcm has becone far more esscntial today than
ever belore. An excculive which is not respunsible and
account
le has proved everywhere to be a threat to political Ireedom
and indivicdual liberly.

Now, lct us. take up the second question. The alleged de-
Iects in tihe system, lo slate brielly, are lack of stability in
the
goveroment due lo delections and political corruptions; want of
lalents in the Cabinel; ovcr-indulgence of Ministets in party
allairs; Jack of conccntration ol powers and ellectivc leadership
in the govermment, and the absence ol a nmaturcd
two-parly sys
Iem. It is to be nuted that none of those delecls is unique to
India. Must of the governmental systens based on democrucy
and party-politics have witnessed these
problems. By no means
 consequc
defections and the
we agree that political
the inevilable products of a
cao
veramental instability are
inslabilily i
system. The threal of governcnlal
mentary
in the body politic. The real
symplomatic of lhe scrious ills the syslem,
throwing away ol
Tor this problem lies not in
out de[ection, which causes
ia laking effective steps to ight
here that this argument hus lo
instability. It is worth noting (Filty
ol the Constitution
much of. its force with the pas5age
Second Amendment) Act, 1985."

a Cabinet form
Then comes the issue of want of talents in
of government. This argument, though sounds good, should not

be exnggeratcd. licre again, it is lo be nolcd that the syslem

as such does not prevent Prime Minister' from inducting the
a
hest available tolents In the Cabinet. Of course, it ls teue that
the range of choice lefi open for the Prime Minister is rather
narrow since it is confincd to the members of the legislature
unlikc in the case of a Presidential form of government. Bul
even regarding the range of choice, it is to be noted that the
system as envisaged in the Constitulion does provide for en-
ough scope to induct into the Cabinet the intellectual talents
who may not be willing to indulge In politics and fight elect.
ions.! Then, whcther a particular Prime Minisler would avall
of thesc opporlunitics or nol, does depend not so much on the
system, but o the personality of the Prime Minister. Even In
a Presidential system, there ls guarantce that the Presldent
no
would always appoint his Ministers on considerations of merit
and compctence alonc.

About the complaint

that the ministers in a Cabinct
tem waste their time in managing
sys
party affairs, it may be said
that, this is a plienomenon which can be lound in
any form of
government based on dernocracy and party system. But the
degree of such indulgence in parly politics depends on the
ticular political ethos in which the system wors. par-
And if the
eficlency in administratlon is threalened in the
process, appro
priale steps are to be taken to reform the electoral
process; to
discipline the political parties; to eradlcate corruptlons In pub
lic life and to evolve healthy conventions and values in
politics.
 The demand that ihe Parliamenlary form of eacculive piust
be rcplaced by a Presidential form on the
ground that we do
not have a maturcd two-parly system can
bardy be jusiied.
Even in countries like England and Unitcd Slalcs the
lwo-party
systcm had come into existence only as a rezult ol centuries of
political devclopment and cxpcricnce. There ue many coun
tries in the world olher than the United Kingdom where the
Parliamcnlary syscm works reasonably well even in the ab
Scnce of a lwo-parly system. Even. in our
own'counlry despile
th: prescnce of large number of political parties, the system
has workcd, though nol ideally, but atleast with reasonable
success and satisfaction.

Tic urgunient advanced during the Emergency thal wc sho-

uld swilch over to Presidential form because it would faciliialc
more concentralion of power in thc cicculivc appears 1o be
cubious, especially in vicw of the political circumstances in which
he clai for morc powcr has been made. Even under the caist
ing sysicn1, ihere is no dearth for power in the cxccutive- if it
wanls jmpleaient any 'progressive policies.
. Yel auotdier signilicant aspcct. lo. be cousidercd in this eon
IcAt is thec fe!-ral structurc ol our polily. When a presidential
lorm is idoicd al thc Cee. naturally tlic Stales would als
have a Presidential typc ol cacculive, wilh more concenir:atio
of powcrs and with less accountability and responsibjilily. Ii is
submilled thal any allcmpt to adopt a Presidential systcm with.
Oult, laking into account llie lederal aspecls of our Constitution
would be unwisc; Ibc curc would be worse than the discasc,
csperially in vicw of the lact thal it is the narrow loculism in the
Stalcs which very oflen manilest as the íssiparous lendcncics in
he dilferent parts of our country.
---
Amalyaid o majr Ayal
CA) Pariamiminy Govermmim -

I n case the legislature and the exccutive are

combined and the latter is held accountable to the former, it becomes
parliamenlary government. It is also known by the nane ot cabinet
government as designated by lvor Jennings and recently rechristened
as Prime Ministerial government by Richard CrossmanIn case the
legislature and the executive wings are separated from cach other and
the latter acts independently of the
control of the former in respect
of its tenure, it becomes presidential system of govern ment. If Britain
is tlhe best example of parliamentary government, presidential system
bas its best instance in
the American political system. In some countries
like France and Sri
Lanka, a curious hotch-potch theof two forms
san be see. though keeping in view the strong and virtually unassail-
2ble position of the head of the stale
as well as of government
(President) .as compared to the feeble position of the Prime Minister
and his cabinet it is
designaled as.quasi-presidential model ol govern-
ment.

ieaning: Having its ancestral place in Britain but

now prevailing
in many countries of the world like
Canada, Australia and India,
parliamentary government is that system in which the real
the cabinet or ninisiry--is executive-
immediately and
legislature or one branch of it fusually thelegally
more
responsible to the
Tor its political policies popular chamber)
and acts, and mediately or
ultimately responsi-
ble to the electorate, whjle the titular or
position nominal executive occupies a
of irresponsibility."" The main features of this
form of
govcrnment are:
. A Nominal Head: The head of the state
(a monarch or a
president) in such a system has nominal autlhority. His
autbority is'in name, not in fact. The entire administration is
done in his name, though all
hin, tiat
powers are formally vested in
are exercised by his ministers
accountable to thè 6
 6
parliament. This titular head appoints his Prime Minister who
is the head of the
government. He administers onths of oflcc
and secrecy to his ministersS and
He signs communications accepts thcir resignations.
relating to the change in ministerial
portfollos and may even dismiss the Prime Minister in case
he forfeits his 'pleasurc.'
2. Leadership of the Prime Minister: Th: Prime
thereal executive authority and, as sucb, he mayMinister
be
holds
as the real working head of the state:' (Ramsay Muir)desçribed
He, is
the chief spokesman of
the government, keystone of the
cabinet arch, leader of the popular
chamber, and generalissimo
of national administration, It is on bis
advice that the normal
head of the state acts in matters
relating to the appointment
or dismissal of the ministers, or reshufie in their portfolios,
or summoning and
prorogation of the session of parliament,
or proclamation of war
and peace, making an appeal to the
nation and the like, Thus, while, the nominal head
real head governs. rules, the
3. Political llomogenelty: The Prime Minister is the leader of
the party having clear majority in the parliament, in the
popular house if it is a bi-cameral legislature. Al ministerS
belong to the same party that has its leader in the Prime
Minister. It may be possible that two or more parties join to
form a coalition govcrnment when no
party is in a posilion
to bave an absolute majority in the parliament, The case of
Such a. 8overnment is an exception and not the rule. It is a
different thing that the Prime Minister may have some
roinisters belonging to pther parties
even when nis own
party
isin comfortable majority. Sucha governnient, called 'national
government, is formed during times of acute crisis.
4. Collective Responsibility: The most important feature of this
government is the principle of responsibility of the ministers
to the legislature. It means that they can live in ofice only so
long as they enjoy confidence or pleasure of the parliament.
The Prime Minister and all ministers are members of
parlip-
ment. According to a well-r ccepted convention, tbe Prime
Minister must be a member of the lower or popular house,
if there are two houses of the legislature. In case a minister
including the Prime Minister) is not a member of the parlin
 ment, he is
of next six required
to secure its
membership
months. It is for this reason within a period
take part in the that tbe ministers
in proceedings
of the parlia ment.
They
defenceof the speak
place motions and policies andforgctivities of tlic government,
resolutlons
prevail; they introduce discussiop
tbeir wishes and see thát
and see to il that budget in the
passed. The ministers also seelegislature
it is
every matter of public importance that in
their d.ccided
adopted by the legislature. The ministers have measures are
vote in a bouse of which they are the powër
members. In case a vote to
censure is passed, or that the of
house, or when a vote of no government is defcated in the
13passed, all ministers confidence against the miaistry
have lo resign. This is called the
principle of collective responsibility. The ministers
bound by the rule of ndividual are also
that the Prime Minister may responsibility whick means
case he ask any minister to resign
forfeits his pleasure, i.
5. Sound and
the
ElTcetive Opposition: If one party in majority forms
governnment, other parties form the
ever, required that the opposition shouldoppisition. It is, how-
play constructive
a
part what the English people.call
opposilion is to prevent the abuse "loyal. The purpose of the
power. is for this reason that the
lt of power by the party in
government for its acts of commission and oppos1tion allacks the
Prime Minister advises
the nominal head of Theomission and the
'an appeal to the volers"
(dissolve the
state to make
votc of no confidence is passed against
parliament) in case a
there is the government and
or when he
no
possibility of
forming alternativc government,
an
thinks in terms of
adopting some
measures in accordance
with the mandate of the revolutionary
people.
Crticisn: Tke parliamcntary form of
and eak elcnments. IFirst, government
shall discuss its nierits:
has its strong
we
1. t
ensures barmony betwcen the:legislative
departineHS. Since the ministry (executivc) and the executive
is a part of the
legisla ure and since it has
chances of majorily bclhind it, there are no
confrontation and deadlock betwcen the
the words of Waller two,
Bagchot, the cabinct is the hyphen thatIn
joins the buckle that fastens the executive to the
legislature.
 Since the erecutive is accountablc to the
legislafure, it cao
De autocratic, |The members of the parliament ask questie
trom the ministers which they mnst answer to the satislaction
O the
house. The policies and
programmes ol the
govern
ment are discussed and criticised in the parliament. Some
imcs the criticism
reaches a point that. a minister or the
ministry as a whole, has to resign. The government always
remains under the fcar of attack from the side of the
3. It
opposition.
lor
secures/swiftness
the
in decision and vigour
in aclion, It is easy
cabinet to get the
through the legislature. It can measures, it deems
easentinl, passed
pursue. vigorous policy, bome
as well as. foreign, as it is confident of the support of the
4. It
majority behind it in the
legislature.
femains res ponsive to the public opinion. It is
in the event
of.popular resentment
possible that
and new elections
are held. The
the ministry. may resign
doing anything that govern ment is afraid of do-
would incur the great
that sensing a displeasure of the
people. lt is also possible
opinion the Prime Minister may advise favourable public
to
make 'an appeal to the clctorate'. the head of the state
5.1 t holds prospects for the
ment The opposition is ready formation of an alternative govern-
to
the party in power resigns, The fornm the government in case
the alternative Prine Minister. leader of the
opposition is
In case the Prime
resigns, any other leader may stake his
claim
Minister
the state niay
give him a chance to for1n the and the head of
can secure
majority vote in government,
the popular chamber.
if he
On the other
hand, the demerits of the
government may be counted as under: parliamenlary form of
. t violates the
principle of
nation of legislative and separation of powers.The combi-
tration
executive departments means
of authority that miay lead to concen
followers of bad results. The
results. The
Montesquicu would,
presidential systen1 that is based on thereforc,
the
appreciate the
of powers and in which of
system separation
one organ of
check on the other two government acts as aa
organs,
 2. This form of government may be quite unstable, in case no
party is in a position to secure absolute niajor+y in the legis-
lature. Coalition governments are made
and unmade with fr
quency with the result that stability in the lield of ndministr a-
tion goes. France under the Pourth Republic (1946-58) had
its worst experiments.
3.Ittends, to make the cxccutivc autocraticJA Prime Miuister
hardly bothers for eriticisu in the parliament when his party
has ovcrwielming majority and supports him blindly. The
opposition feels liclpless in correcting the erratic behaviour
of the government, because all decisions in the parlia1neot
are taken on the basis of voting. The Prime Minister virtually
rules like. a despot
1 he opposilion plays an irresponsible role iu many cases. Its
function is just to oppose the goverument. Sometimes even
good and constructive proposals of the government arc criti
cised by the opposition leaders in order to embarrass or
lhumiliate the party in, power. The legislature looks like ja
battle-ground of partics rather than a forun for healtiy
diseussion.
5. The interests of the nation are ignored for the sake of interest
of the party in power. The government distributes favours
among its own menbers as a result of which corruption pre
vails and it may assunie serious proportions. Due considera-
tion is not given to merit and talent. All matlers ure decided
in the intcrest of the party.

(B) Presdenial Govor mmbml

As prevailing in the Unitcd Stales and a number of other
countries like Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, tiic Phillippines,
South Korea elc., il is based on the doclrine of the sepazation of
 8

pOwers. The chief executive (the President) is the real bead of the
state; he is elected by the people, whether
directly or
definite period and is not accountable to tho legislature indirectly,he for a
be removed by the process ol though nay
impeachmcnt, Thus, "is that system
in whichthe executive (including
it
both the head of the stute and
his
ministers) constitutionally
is
independent the legislature in
of
respeçt
to the duration of his or their tenure and
irresponsible
their political policies,"0 IIs main features are:
to it for his or

1. Real Authorityof the President: The

tive is in the hanJs of the Presideot
leadership of the cxecu-
who isclected by the
people for alixed period às of four years in the United States.
The procedure of' election may be
either direet or indirect
and the constitution may also
specify as to the number of
tenuresa person inay hold (as of two terms in the US). He
may nominate his niinisters as his advisers who are aot bis
colleagues but, what. is critically dubbed in the United States,
as his 'palace guards'. The body of the ministers is called the
cabinet that is either like the family of the President, or a
brains trust'. The President may change the portfolios of his
ministers as per his will, or may dismiss any one of them in
case he loses the conidence of the "boss'. He formulates
national policy, orders mobilisation of troops, declares state
of emergency and takes all necessary steps for the enforce
ment of laws and maintenance of order in the country. In
short, he governs like the real ruler of the country.
2. Separation of Legislature from the Executive: The President
and his 1ninisters cannot be the members of the legislature.
In case the President appoints a member of legislatureas bis
minisler, he has to leave his legislative membership. Itis for
this reason that the President and his ministers donot take
partinthe deliberations of the legislature. The President
may
go to the legislature either for delivering an important
address, or he may send 'messages' that may be accepted by
the legislature, Even his ministers may altend a session of the
legislature and may also take part in the discussion, butthey
have no right to vote. The budget is prepareq by the execu-
tive and introduced iTthe legislature, but thc parliamcnt may
 - 4thy cut' in it.
The bills passed by the legislature are
Subjectto the 'veto' power of the President. An arrangement
is also made to override Presidential veto
by neans of re
adoption of the bill by the legislature by special majority, In
this way, the executive and the
legislature are separaled from
each other in this form of
government.
3. Checks and Balances: Lest the chief cxecutive nct in
an auto-
cratic way, a system of checks and balances is also
devised so
that ench organ of
government ucts as a check on the other
Two organs. For
instance, in the United States ill no'nina-
1ons made and all treaties signed by the President are rati-
fiedby the Senate; the bills passed by the Congress are asent.
cdto by the President; the laws of the Congress and the
decrees of the executive may be struck down
by the court on
the ground of being violative of the
constitution. Mere separa-
tion of governmental
organs will not do, separation supple
mented with checks and balances makes the
Process of
work. system
Impeachment: Above all, process of impeaclhment
is provided remove the President in case he is held
to
guilly of violating the onth of oflice. The Presidcnt is under
an oath that he will defend and
protect the constitution »f the
state. In case he does otherwise, the
process of impeachment
mny be used to remove him from olice. Usunlly the power of
impeachment is given to the legislature. For instance. in the
United States, the vork of impeach.nent shall initiate
in the
House of Representatives. The House shall
present the cliarge
sheet,
and the President tender his explanation. The matter
shal! be decided by 2/3 majority of votes in the Senate.
Criticism: The presidential system of government has its
strength and weakness. First, we shall take up its merits: points of
1. It ensures stability
of government. The President is elected
a fixed term and it is a very for
process of
tedious job to remove him by the
does not
impenclhment. As such,
the fate of the
exccutive
depend upon the fickle vote of tlhe
the government can follow
parliament, Thus,
a consistent and continuous
policy.
 nalional crisis ellective
the conditions of
meet
2.
It may bavce to sct according to
the
chiel executive does not \
or the niembers of his cabinct.
tions of the legislature
as the A inericans say.
aye is the aye of all,
S i n c e the system is based on the principle of
separation
to ass ume legisla
powers, il is not possible for the President
ive powers as well as happens in a country having parlia-
mentary form of go vernmént. Since all organs ol goveriiment
ct as n check on ench othcr, power chccks the abuse of
power. l is the best way to preserve a democratic syslcm,
4. It T5 8lso good from.the administrative point of view, Since
the ministers are not obliged to give atlendance in the legisla-
ture, they can devole theimselves wholly to the dutics f the
departments. It makes possible the sclection of experts to l:*ad
each department that nay notBe possible in a parliaimentary
system where the Prinme Ministcr has to give ministerial posi
tions to his trusted colleagues without paymg'regard to
tieir
abilitics.
5. Since thc
legislature cannot he controlicd by thc executite, it
is also
poSsible for il-to'act moreindependently. The me"be
of the lcgislature are not
required to ditlo he line cf thhe
party boSs as we sce in a parliamentary systenm, The menbers
of the parliament Can vole
freely on the
issues presented to
them. as the fatc of the administration daes not
depend on
their support.
On the other side, the elements weakness of
of presidential lorm
ofgovernmcnt may be counted as under:
I. Itleads to executive autocracy. Since the
for
fixcd tcrm and since he cannot be
a
President is èlected
removed by the pro-
cess of impcachment on account of
its
he may rule like a despot. The Seur ofbeing tedious a:lair,
a
the vote of no conli-
dence lurks in the mind of the Prime
Minister, the President
hardly bothers for his impeachment.
2. Since it is bascd on the
is also possible that the
principle of separation of powers, it
executive and the legislative depart
nents are at
loggerheads. In case one
the ofice of the President and the other political party grabs
in the legislature, the chances of party has its majority
conirontation between the
two increase. Thus, there may occur a deadlock due to
confrontation between the executive and the legislative
departmcnts. .
Since legislaturc is free from the control of the executive, it
may act in a very irresponsible manner. There is nothing like
discipline in the American Congress. Dillerent groups mani-
pulate hings in dilferent diretions. The result is that the
working of a legislature is vitiatcd by the tobbyists who ight
for getting a sliare of 'pork barrel'.
It may be
also accused being of a rigid systen. The
President
cannot inlluencc thé parliancnt to make laws quickly so as to
mecl the conditions sf crisis. The legislature may, or may not,
support the executive lo the nccessary cxtent.