PRESIDENTIAL AND PARLIAMENTARY FORMS OF GOVERNMENT

Introduction
 A Constitution lays down the fundamental rules by which a society is governed -
empowers and limits the institutions that govern the society.
 While a good constitutional design can facilitate democracy and control religious
conflicts, a bad design might result in democratic breakdown and communal conflicts.
 The most fundamental aspect of constitutional design is about choosing the right
institutional form of government: should the country have a presidential system of
government, a parliamentary system or a semi-presidential system which is a hybrid
system that combines aspects of parliamentarism with presidentialism.
Features and essentials of both forms of democracy
Presidential
 A presidential system is a system of government where the head of government is
usually directly chosen by the people and is also the head of state.
 The president is the head of the executive branch of the government and is clearly
separate from the legislative branch.
 The President has a fixed term in office and cannot be normally removed by a vote of
confidence in the legislature. Hence, the President is not responsible to the legislature
and cannot be removed from office by the legislature except in extraordinary cases
through methods like a motion for impeachment.
 3 pre-requisites: the head of state is popularly elected; parliament can neither appoint
nor remove the government; the head of state is also the head of the government.
 The President appoints the members of the cabinet who serve at the pleasure of the
president although the appointment of certain executive posts may require the
approval of the legislature.
 Neither the President nor the members of the cabinet are members of the legislature. –
executive branch separate from legislative branch.
 Eg. Argentina, brazil, USA, Zimbabwe
Parliamentary
 A Parliamentary system is a system of government in which the executive is chosen
by and responsible to a legislature and the head of state is usually not the head of
government.
 In a Parliamentary system the executive, consisting of the Prime Minister and the
cabinet, is collectively responsible to the legislature from which it derives its
democratic legitimacy. Executive is a part of the legislature and implements laws and
plays an active role in framing it as well.
 The parliament (the legislature) can be unicameral or bicameral.
 The Prime Minister heads the cabinet and also usually selects its members and
allocates them a portfolio.
 The Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet, in most countries with a
parliamentary system, are also members of the parliament.
  So a parliamentary system is characterised by a fusion of the legislative and executive
branches of the state.
 Pre-requisite - the government must only be appointed, supported, and dismissed by
the parliament.
 Head of the state – monarch or president. Both positions only ceremonial. Head of the
government (prime minister) = real head
 While the head of state normally appoints the head of government, the leader of the
party or the coalition with the majority of the seats in parliament, as per constitutional
convention, is usually appointed prime minister.
 If the party or the coalition which the Prime Minister represents does not enjoy
majority in the house, the government can be brought down by a vote of no-
confidence in the Parliament.
 The government can only have a maximum term and not a fixed term since the
government can be brought down and parliament dissolved at any time.
 The government is required to have the continued support of the popularly elected
chamber of the legislature and such a requirement is called the principle of
responsible government which aims to keep the executive accountable to the
legislature.
 If the cabinet cannot maintain the confidence of the legislature, it is required by
constitutional convention to resign. Then the popularly elected chamber of the
parliament gets dissolved and fresh elections are called again.
 Example: UK, india, Australia, Canada, etc.
 Features - https://www.iasabhiyan.com/parliamentary-system/

Form of Democracy in India, USA and UK (constitutional provisions and comparative

assessment)
India
 India, like Canada, follows a hybrid system of government based on "parliamentary
federalism" which combines two classical models: British tradition, based on
parliamentary supremacy and American principles, with clear separation of powers
and judicial review.
 While introducing the Draft Constitution before the Assembly, Ambedkar explained
that both presidential and parliamentary systems are democratic and the choice
between the two is not very easy. According to him, a democratic executive must
satisfy two conditions: 1. It must be a stable executive 2. It must be a responsible
executive.
 According to Ambedkar, major difference between parliamentary and presidential
system is regarding time and agency for assessment of executive’s responsibility. In
presidential system, the assessment of the responsibility of the executive is periodic. It
is done by the electorate. In England, where the parliamentary system prevails, the
assessment of responsibility of the executive is both daily and periodic. The daily
assessment is done by members of Parliament, through questions, resolutions, no-
confidence motions, adjournment motions and debates on addresses. Periodic
 assessment is done by the electorate at the time of the election, which may take place
every five years or earlier. The daily assessment of responsibility that is not available
under the American system is it is felt far more effective than the periodic assessment
and far more necessary in a country like India.
 India’s parliamentary democratic system can be called “constrained
parliamentarianism” which differs from the classical Westminster model since it does
not concentrate law-making power in one institution and instead checks the power of
the executive and the legislature by granting independence to other institutions like a
constitutional court.
 While choosing between a stable executive, as witnessed in presidential systems like
US, and a responsible executive, as witnessed in parliamentary systems like UK,
India’s constitution makers preferred more responsibility to more stability.
 Article 74 and 75 – parliamentary system at centre
 Article 163 and 164 – …………… at states.

USA
 The first modern Presidential System of government was the one established in the
United States of America with enactment of The Constitution of the United States in
1787.
 One of the reasons for strongly adopting a Presidential system was to ensure that
separation of powers- between the legislature, executive and judiciary- was
maintained in the context of the revolution against the concentrated power of the
British Crown.
 The founding fathers of the American Constitution drew heavily from political
thinkers like Locke and Montesquieu who advocated the need for a clear separation of
the executive and legislative powers of the state.
 Hence, the American Constitution requires a member of Congress to resign if that
person is appointed to the cabinet.
 The United States has the quintessential presidential system, with the President and
the legislature selected independent of one another.
 Article II of the US Constitution provides that ‘the executive power shall be vested in
the President of the United States of America’.
 The President is elected following a nationwide vote for that office on a fixed
schedule through a mechanism known as the Electoral College. The ‘legislative
powers’ of the federal government are vested in the Congress, which consists of the
Senate and the House of Representatives. Each house is given certain special
responsibilities.
 Legislation is enacted by vote of a simple majority of each house followed by
presentation to the President. The Congress can override a presidential veto by two-
thirds vote of each house.
 The President may recommend legislation to the Congress, but the Congress is not
obliged to act on his recommendations
UK – ALONG WITH NOTES OF SENIOR
 The modern concept of the parliamentary system of government can traced to the
system followed in early 18th century Britain.
 The parliamentary system of Britain, which came to be known as the Westminster
system was followed in many countries in the Commonwealth of Nations.
 The United Kingdom is a Constitutional Monarchy where the King or Queen serves
as the legal head of the state but only has ceremonial powers.
 The modern British system, sometimes called the Westminster model, is a
parliamentary system with a relatively high degree of fusion of executive and
legislative power.
 England has a bicameral legislature: the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
Their work is similar: making laws (legislation), checking the work of the government
(scrutiny), and debating current issues.
 The Commons is publicly elected. The party with the largest number of members in
the Commons forms the government.
 Members of the Commons (MPs) debate the big political issues of the day and
proposals for new laws.
 It is one of the key places where government ministers, like the Prime Minister and
the Chancellor, and the principal figures of the main political parties, work.
 The political party (or coalition of parties) with a majority in the House of Commons
selects PM.
 The Commons alone is responsible for making decisions on financial Bills, such as
proposed new taxes. The Lords can consider these Bills but cannot block or amend
them.
 The House of Lords is the second chamber of the UK Parliament. It is independent
from, and complements the work of, the elected House of Commons.
 The Lords shares the task of making and shaping laws and checking and challenging
the work of the government.
 The Prime Minister also exercises control over parliament because of his or her power
to dissolve parliament and call for new elections. Because the Prime Minister and
legislative majority are drawn from the same party, there is less likelihood of
deadlock and a greater chance that legislation will pass.

Advantages and disadvantages of both forms of government

PRESIDENTIAL
https://www.iasabhiyan.com/parliamentary-system/
PARLIAMENTARY
https://www.iasabhiyan.com/parliamentary-system/

Which is more compatible with the idea of good governance

 As America’s democracy is widely considered to be a success, its presidential system
of government has been promoted by American foreign policy makers and others in
 new democracies that were emerging across the world in the 20th century, especially
in Latin America.
 However, America is more an exception to the rule since most of the democracies that
endured are parliamentary democracies and not presidential ones.
 The adoption of Montesquieu’s separation of powers in America has resulted in
repeated constitutional crisis whereby elected presidents disband uncooperative
congresses to install themselves as dictators often with the aid of the military.
Separation of Powers empowers the role of a single person, the President. it still does
not promote a separation of powers that is based on functional specialization and
hence over politicizes public administration and erodes the rule of law.
 The reason few long established democracies have presidential systems stems from
the intrinsic defects of presidentialism - one of the major problems with
presidentialism is that in such a system the president and assembly have competing
claims to legitimacy. Since both derive their power from the vote of the people “a
conflict is always latent and sometimes likely to erupt dramatically; there is no
democratic principle to resolve it." This is not the case with a parliamentary system
where the legislature can replace the government by exercising a no confidence vote.
 Another issue with presidentialism is that the fixed presidential term entails a rigidity
that makes adjustment to changing situations extremely difficult. Unlike a
parliamentary system which allows for greater flexibility, a leader who has lost the
confidence of his own party cannot be replaced in presidential form.
 In a presidential system, since only one person is elected as the executive, there is
indivisibility of power and such a system could favour the president to always come
from a same ethnic group. Whereas in parliamentarism, there is opportunity for
power-sharing and coalition-forming. this allows the interests of many groups to be
represented.
 Presidential systems have certain rigidity between elections due to the fixed term the
president enjoys while Parliamentary systems are able to address serious conflicts by
having a change of leader before the completion of his/her term.