PRESIDENTIAL AND

PARLIMENTARY SYSTEM -
INDIAN DEMOCRACY

Presented by: Presented to:

Shuja haider Rizvi Dr. J.P.Yadav
Ashutosh Awasthi Axita Srivastav
 PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM

 A presidential system is a democratic and republican system of

government where a head of government leads an executive
branch that is separate from the legislative branch.
 The presidential form of government is based on the principle of
separation of power between the executive and legislature. Under
this system the executive is independent from the control of
legislature.
 This head of government is in most cases also the head of state,
which is called president.
 In presidential countries, the executive is elected and is not
responsible to the legislature, which cannot in normal
circumstances dismiss it.
 Such dismissal is possible, however, in uncommon cases, often
through impeachment.
 PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT

 Parliaments are common over the whole of the civilized world.

English parliament is the Mother of all Parliaments.
 The parliamentary system of government, which is also
known as the Cabinet Government, is based on close
relationship between the executive and legislature.
 The executive is accountable to the legislature and stays in
office as long as it enjoys the confidence of legislature.
 Under parliamentary system of government there are two
types of executives-
 nominal and real.
 The real executive is accountable to the legislature and when
later passes a vote of confidence against it has to render its
resignation or seek the dissolution of the legislature
 How India adopt parliamentary system

 The choice of the parliamentary system was one political party’s decision. It was taken
in the summer of 1946, during a Congress party meeting, and then shepherded
through the Constitution-making process as a party directive.
 At the time, neither Ambedkar nor Patel was in favour of a strictly parliamentary
system. As the Constitution-making progressed, both Ambedkar and Patel would
bring their own ideas for a different type of government to the Constituent Assembly.
 Nehru’s committee wanted a typical parliamentary structure of a unitary state with an
indirectly elected Executive. But the matter was far from settled. Nehru’s committee
continued to develop the Union Constitution along the old lines, while Patel
proceeded to devise a Provincial Constitution with directly elected governors.
 India has adopted the parliamentary form of government. But the adoption of
parliamentary form of government has not happened through a process of gradual
evolution, as in England. In India, this form of government was deliberately adopted
by the Constituent Assembly.
 Parliamentary System of Government in India

 Parliamentary system of government: Executive is

responsible to the legislature for its policies and acts.

 The Constitution of India provides for a parliamentary form

of government, both at the Centre and in the States.
 Articles 74and 75 deal with the parliamentary system of
government at the Union level and Articles 163 and
164contain provisions with regard to the States.

 The parliamentary system in India is borrowed from the

Government of India Act 1935.
 Which one is better for Indian
Democracy
 Despite all the features of the parliamentary system, the country cannot
progress rapidly under it. Parliamentary system is based on majority, whereas
in the present situation it is not possible for any party to get this majority.
Turning a blind eye to this reality can neither change nor eliminate reality.
Parliamentary system in India has done the job of maintaining democracy, but
what it should have done has not happened.
 Consideration should be given to adopting presidential system of government
instead of parliamentary system. This method is also democratic and
transparent. America and France have similar governance systems.
 By adopting the presidential system, we will all get a valid leadership, because
people from different parts of the country will directly elect a person for a fixed
time. In this way the person who is elected will concentrate his full attention on
running the state. It will not have to depend on coalition partners or regional
parties. In this process the country will be more empowered and united. There
will also be a Parliament in the Presidential system
 CONCLUSION

 Our Parliamentary model has failed to provide for better

governance due to its inherent weaknesses. We have mind boggling
scams such as 2G Spectrum, Coalgate, Common Wealth Games and
many others where even an honest Prime Minister, in the absence of
an absolute majority in the Parliament, remained a helpless and
mute spectator as he had to ‘compromise in coalition politics’ as
candidly agreed by Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh. On the
other hand, a Prime Minister belonging to the ruling party having
an absolute majority tends to behave in an autocratic manner. He
enjoys far more powers than the President of U.S.A. where even the
members of his own party are in a position to provide required
checks on the President because of the freedom and separation of
Executive from the Legislature. It is time now to seriously consider
the truly democratic Presidential system for better governance.
Thank You….