Presidential versus Parliamentary Democracy

Politics is the way that people living in groups make decisions. Politics is about making
agreements between people so that they can live together in groups such as tribes, cities or
countries. In large groups, such as countries, some people may spend a lot of their time making
such agreements. In modern nation states, people often form political parties to represent their
ideas. Members of a party often agree to take the same position on many issues and agree to
support the same changes to law and the same leaders. An election is usually a competition
between different parties.

Presidential System
In the Presidential System, the head of the government is the chief executive who is directly
elected by the people and the executive is not responsible to the legislature. Both the organs are
separate, unlike in the parliamentary system where the executive is responsible to the legislature.
All the organs of the government i.e., legislature, executive and judiciary function separately
from each other and are constitutionally independent. The head of the government is the
President, who is responsible for enforcing the laws. This system is founded by America and is a
perfect example of this system. This system rejects legislative supremacy and is designed for
countries that are a full republic and not a constitutional monarchy. Elections are held more
frequently in the Presidential form of government, every two years for the legislature and four
years for the President.

Executive can veto acts of the legislature

The executive here is a President who can veto acts or laws passed by the Congress (legislature).
Basically, veto means the power of the President to approve, refuse or joint resolution to prevent
the enactment of any law. Clause 2 of Section 7 in Article 1 of the US constitution clearly states
that every bill that is passed by the House of Representatives and Senate shall be presented
before the President of the United States before becoming a law. He can approve it by signing it
or send it back to the Senate with his objections for reconsideration. The President has been
granted this power in order to prevent abuse of power by the Senate.

President has a fixed tenur

In a Presidential system, the President has a fixed tenure. Elections are held regularly and cannot
be disturbed by passing of no-confidence motion or other parliamentary procedures. There are
few exceptions to this which provides that the President can be removed if he violates the law in
some countries. In the U.S., Presidents are elected for a four-year term and by the 22nd
Amendment Act of the U.S. Constitution limits the tenure of the President to two terms.
However, where a President through the order of succession, that is by taking the office after
death, resignation or ousting of the previous President, they are allowed to serve for an additional
two years.

President holds quasi-judicial powers

A quasi-judicial power is a power that is partly judicial in character by the possession of the right
to hold hearings and conduct investigations into disputed claims and alleged infractions of rules
and regulations and to come to a decision in the general manner of courts quasi-judicial bodies.
The President has the power to pardon and commute judicial sentences awarded to the offenders.

President is elected directly by the people through the electoral college

The elections in the US are held on the method of the first-past-the-post system. Article 2 of the
U.S Constitution establishes the method of election of the President. In other US elections,
candidates are elected directly by popular vote. But the President and the Vice-President are not
elected directly by the people of the country. They are chosen by the electors through the process
of the electoral college. All members of the federal legislature are elected directly by the people
of each state. 
Although India has primarily adopted the British Model while selecting the parliamentary form
of government still there are some basic differences between the parliamentary system of India
and Britain. These are:

United Kingdom of Britain India

Britain has a monarchical system. India is a republican country.

The head of state in Britain is King

The head of state is the President who is elected on the
who enjoys the hereditary position and
basis of proportional representation.
is not elected.

Indian Parliament is not very supreme as some

In the UK, the parliament is the
restricted powers and is limited due to the presence of
supreme authority as they follow the
a written constitution, the federal system, judicial
principle of Parliamentary sovereignty.
review, and fundamental rights.

In Britain, the Prime Minister should In India, the Prime Minister can be a member of any
be a member of the House of house Rajya Sabha or Lok Sabha in the Parliament.
 Commons(Lower House) of the
parliament.

But in India, a person who is not a member of any

In Britain, usually, the members of
house can also become Minister but only for a
parliament only become Ministers.
maximum period of 6 months.

In Britain, ministers are required to

Ministers in India do not need to sign such a
countersign the official acts of the
document.
Head of the state.

Rigid government
The fixed tenure of the president brings stability which leads to rigidity. It makes the system
more rigid. It becomes difficult to remove the President even if people are not happy with the
work carried out by him or his party. The citizens have to bear him till new elections are held
even though he carries out inefficient policies or becomes unpopular. Hence, the presidential
form of government lacks flexibility in its operation.

Parliamentary system
The parliamentary system was developed by England and India adopted this system from the UK
with some changes. In parliamentary system or parliamentary democracy where the executive
derives its democratic legitimacy from its ability to command the confidence of the legislature
and is accountable to the legislature. The head of the state is separate from the head of the
government. Parliamentary form of government is dominant in Europe with 32 of its sovereign
states. In the UK parliamentary system is also known as the Westminster systemThis system is
prevalent in the UK, Sweden, Japan, and Denmark. In countries having a Bicameral system, the
head of the government usually is a member of the lower house.  India chose a Parliamentary
System for the governance of the country after independence. It is so because the constitution-
makers in the country were greatly influenced by the parliamentary system prevalent in the
United Kingdom. Also, seeing the diverse and varied groups and their culture, religion and
behavior somewhere forced our founding fathers to accommodate this system keeping in mind
the political setup. The principle of strict separation of power, being one of the key features of
the Presidential System leads to a lot of problems between the legislature and the executive.

The executive is responsible to the legislature

One of the key features that differentiate the presidential and parliamentary system is that in
latter the executive is responsible to the legislature. The Prime Minister and the Council of
Ministers are collectively answerable in Lok Sabha and individually to the President. The
executive loses its power when it loses confidence in the Lok Sabha. Legislature makes the laws
and then relies on the executive for its implementation which practices delegated legislation.

Election of the head of government

Implementations of the parliamentary system can also differ as to how the prime minister and
government are appointed and whether the government needs the explicit approval of the
parliament, rather than just the absence of its disapproval. Some countries such as India also
require the prime minister to be a member of the legislature, though in other countries this only
exists as a convention.

The head of state appoints a prime minister who will likely have majority support in parliament.
While in practice most prime ministers under the Westminster system (including Australia,
Canada, Malaysia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom) are the leaders of the largest party in
parliament, technically the appointment of the prime minister is a prerogative exercised by the
monarch, the governor-general, or the president.
The head of state appoints a prime minister who must gain a vote of confidence within a set time.
Examples: Italy, Thailand.
The head of state appoints the leader of the political party holding a plurality of seats in
parliament as prime minister. For example, in Greece, if no party has a majority, the leader of the
party with a plurality of seats is given an exploratory mandate to receive the confidence of the
parliament within three days. If this is not possible, then the leader of the party with the second-
highest seat number is given the exploratory mandate. If this fails, then the leader of the third-
largest party is given it, and so on.
Parliament nominates a candidate whom the head of state is constitutionally obliged to appoint as
prime minister. Example: Japan, where the Emperor appoints the Prime Minister on the
nomination of the National Diet. Also, Ireland, where the President of Ireland, appoints the
Taoiseach on the nomination of Dáil Éireann.

Scrutiny and accountability

The United Kingdom's fused power system is often noted to be advantageous with regards to
accountability. The centralized government allows for more transparency as to where decisions
originate from, this directly contrasts with the United States' system with former Treasury
Secretary C. Douglas Dillon saying "the president blames Congress, the Congress blames the
president, and the public remains confused and disgusted with government in Washington".[23]
Furthermore, ministers of the U.K. cabinet are subject to weekly Question Periods in which their
actions/policies are scrutinized; no such regular check on the government exists in the U.S.
system.

Party fragmentation
In R. Kent Weaver's book Are Parliamentary Systems Better?, he writes that an advantage of
presidential systems is their ability to allow and accommodate more diverse viewpoints. He
states that because "legislators are not compelled to vote against their constituents on matters of
local concern, parties can serve as organizational and roll-call cuing vehicles without forcing out
dissidents.