Changing to a presidential system is the best way of ensuring a democracy that works
27th July, 2020
Context:
Recent issues of switching of MLA in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh is the indication that parliamentary system in India is not working.
Reasons:
Our parliamentary system has created a unique breed of legislator, who has sought election only in order to wield executive power.
Produced governments dependent on a fickle legislative majority.
Obliged government to focus more on politics than on policy or performance.
Distorted the voting preferences of an electorate.
Spawned parties that are shifting alliances of selfish individual interests, not vehicles of coherent sets of ideas.
Forced governments to concentrate less on governing than on staying in office.
Obliged governments to cater to the lowest common denominator of their coalitions.
Politicians do not want to change the system because they know how to work the present system and do not wish to alter the ways they are used to.
The parliamentary system devised in Britain is based on traditions which simply do not exist in India.
Voter’s preference is usually based on the basis of their caste, their public image or other personal qualities.
India’s many challenges require political arrangements that permit decisive action, whereas ours increasingly promotes drift and indecision.
Requirement of Parliamentary System:
Clearly defined political parties, each with a coherent set of policies and preferences that distinguish it from the next.
Voters preference based on parties than on individual candidates.
Challenges of Parliamentary System:
It limits executive posts to those who are electable rather than to those who are able. The prime minister cannot appoint a cabinet of his choice; he has to cater to the wishes of the political leaders of several parties.
It puts a premium on defections and horse-trading.
Poor Quality of Legislation: Most laws are drafted by the executive — in practice by the bureaucracy — and parliamentary input into their formulation and passage is minimal, with very many bills being passed after barely a few minutes of debate.
The parliamentary system does not permit the existence of a legislature distinct from the executive, applying its collective mind freely to the nation’s laws.
For those parties who do not get into government Parliament or Assembly serves not as a solemn deliberative body, but as a theatre for the demonstration of their power to disrupt.
Case for Presidential System:
A directly elected chief executive in New Delhi and in each state, would have stability of tenure free.
Ability to appoint the cabinet ministers of talent.
Devote his or her energies to governance.
Vote directly for the individual.
President will truly be able to claim to speak for a majority of Indians rather than a majority of MPs.
The public would be able to judge the individual on performance in improving the lives of Indians, rather than on political skill at keeping a government in office.
The same logic would apply to the directly elected heads of our towns and cities.
Presidential form of government:
A presidential system is a system of government where a head of government is also head of states and leads an executive branch that is separate from legislative branch.
Presidents take more direct personal charge of policy than the cabinet does in a parliamentary system.