Open Access Research Article
PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNANCE – DOES INDIA NEED IT?
Published Paper
Article Details
PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNANCE –
DOES INDIA NEED IT?
This Research Article Discusses The
Suitability Of A Presidential Form Of Government In India.
AUTHORED BY
- DHRUV SHRIVASTAVA
Abstract
India's system of democracy is based
on the Parliamentary form of government, whereby the Head of the state is
different from the Head of the government.
However, from time to time it has been
suggested by many experts that India should adopt the Presidential form of
government instead of the Parliamentary style of democracy, inherited from the
British
This research article will discuss
various arguments put up by various experts in favor and against the
suitability of a Presidential form of Government in India in this contemporary
world and also our opinion on it.
Introduction:
This research paper mainly discusses
the form of government of the President and its suitability in India in today's
modern world.
Presidential System of Government
In a presidential system, the head of
government heads the executive branch separate from parliament. Here, the head
of government and the head of state is the same thing. Another key feature of
his is that the executive branch is not accountable to Legislature.
Characteristics of the Presidential
System;
1.
The executive branch (the president) can veto the
actions of the legislative branch.
2.
The President has a fixed term of office and cannot be
removed by a vote of no confidence in Congress.
3.
In general, the President has the power to pardon or
commutate sentences imposed on criminals.
4.
The President is elected directly by the people or by
the Electoral College. The form of government of the President is based on the
principle of separation of powers between the executive and legislative
branches. Under this system, the executive branch is independent of legislative
control over its policies and actions.
5.
“In this system, the head of state is the true
executive branch.”
6.
According to D.V. -The term president was chosen
because in this system the offices of the head of government and head of state
are merged into the president. Fixed tenure and unified structure. Currently,
countries such as the United States, Brazil, Sri Lanka, etc. have presidential
governments.
India has a
British-style parliamentary government. There were good reasons why the
Founding Fathers chose this instead of the presidential system.
In addition to parliamentary and
presidential systems, there may also be mixed systems containing features of
both systems. The main difference between these systems is the degree of
separation of powers between legislative, executive, and judicial. Another
important difference between presidential and parliamentary systems is the
accountability of the executive branch to the legislative branch.
Presidential System - Brief History
• Presidential
political system can be traced back to medieval England, France, and Scotland. where
a monarch or crown (king/queen) held executive power rather than imperial
lands.
• This
influenced the United States constitutionalists to create a directly elected
presidential office.
• The word
``president'' comes from the Latin ``praesidens'', which means ``governor''.
Presidential
Forms of Government - Features
• True Head
of State: In this system, the head of state is the true head of the executive
branch.
• Separation
of Powers: The presidential system of government is based on the idea of
??separation of powers between the three ministries of government. The
executive branch is not accountable to parliament. The legislative branch cannot
be dissolved by the executive branch. The judiciary is also separated from the
executive and legislative branches.
• Principle
of Checks and Balances: The three branches of government are separate from each
other, but all control and limit abuse of each other's powers and functions.
• Presidency
of the President: Since all powers of government are in the hands of the
President, the President is a senior post.
History
Developments
in America-
The
presidential system was a British colonial government of the 17th century that
has its roots in what is now America. Allowed to rule the Plymouth colony, the
Pilgrims established a system of independent administrators. Each year, a
governor was elected by the colonial assembly, along with several assistants,
similar to a modern cabinet. Later, other law enforcement officers such as
police officers and messengers were appointed. At the same time, the British
Isles experienced a brief republic as a protectorate[1],
during which the Lord Protector served as an administrative leader as well as
the president[2].
The
first true presidential system was developed at the 1787 United States
Constitutional Convention[3].
Inspired by previous colonial governments, British common law, and philosophers
such as John Locke and Montesquieu, delegated a developed form of government
that is now known as the presidential system. James Wilson, in particular,
advocated a unified executive image to assume the role of president.
During
the 1810s and 1820s, the Spanish colonies in the Americas sought independence,
and several new Spanish-speaking governments emerged in Latin America. These
countries were modeled after the United States Constitution, and the
presidential system became America's dominant political system. After decades
of monarchy, Brazil also introduced a presidential system in 1889. Latin
American presidential systems have experienced varying levels of stability, and
many have experienced periods of authoritarian rule. Modeled after its other
Spanish colonies as the Global System, the Philippines established its first
presidential system in Asia in 1898 but fell under American rule as a result of
the Spanish-American War. It was after the United States granted independence
to the Philippines in 1946, the presidential system was restored.
With
the end of World War II, the presidential system was established in the two
countries. The United States helped South Korea form a presidential government
after ending the Japanese occupation of Korea. However, the early years of the
South Korean presidency were marked by authoritarian rule. At the same time,
Indonesia declared its independence from the Netherlands in 1945. It was
nominally a presidential system, but in reality, it was a dictatorship in which
the president controlled all organs of the government.
In
1998 a true presidential system was introduced. The decolonization of the 1950s
and the 1960s resulted in a significant expansion of the presidential system.
Several new presidential republics were formed in Africa during this period.
Cyprus[4],
Maldives, and South Vietnam also adopted presidential systems after
decolonization. Pakistan and Bangladesh did as well but changed their systems
of government shortly thereafter.
Several
other countries introduced presidential systems in the last decades of the 20th
century. Iran introduced a modified version of the presidential system after
the 1989 constitutional amendment, with the supreme leader acting as head of
state and absolute power in the country. Presidential System Remains Adopted in
the 21st Century
Study
Objectives
The
main objective of this study is to discuss the views of various political
thinkers on the suitability of the presidential form of government in India.
Also our take on it.
Before
that, let us first discuss the advantages and disadvantages of presidential
governments and their comparative studies.
Advantages of the Presidential
System of Government;;
i)
Speed
??and decisiveness in decision-making; The presidential
system of government guarantees decisive action. This speed of decision-making,
therefore, makes it easier for governments to respond to problems, especially
in situations where delay in action is dangerous.
ii)
Presidential
discretion in appointments; The main advantage of the
presidential system of government is that the president is free to appoint
ministers and other government appointees. Cabinet members may be elected from
outside the president's political party, and in this situation, the president
is given the freedom to select the best material from any region of the
country.
iii)
Single
National Constituency; The fact that the electorate elects
the president from among the people makes the whole country a single
constituency for him so that the party cannot control the president except by
giving him advice at the convention. He, and not his party or his agent, is
solely responsible for his acts and omissions. This puts constant pressure on
him to perform because he can't blame anyone.
iv)
Benefits
of separation of powers and checks and balances;
The separation of powers mechanism strengthens the effective exercise of each
branch of government in its functioning, while checks and balances allow an
inherently autocratic president to be subject to constitutional checks.
Combining the two devices clearly improves overall government performance and
the ability to optimally deliver services.
v)
Fixed
Duration; The term of office of the president in the
presidential system guarantees the stability of the government and the
continuity of politics. A stable government also allows for medium- and
long-term planning rather than the instability that characterizes parliamentary
government.
Shortcomings of the Presidential
System:
i)
Tendency
to dictatorship; The presidential system is prone to
dictatorship and abuse of power and is dangerous to the democratic process.
This is because a huge amount of power is concentrated in the presidential
office. Presidentialism focuses too much on the personality and capabilities of
the president. When that person weakens, it weakens the office and can even
threaten the system. The United States presidency, for example, took a long
time to recover from the shock that hit the office of the Watergate scandal[5],
which was the result of a temporary but serious indiscretion by President
Richard Nixon. The president's authoritarian tendencies can also be attributed
to the circuitous process required before initiating impeachment proceedings
against a sitting president.
ii)
Friction
between Agencies; Separation of powers can cause delays in
the implementation of government programs, especially in situations where
executive and legislative relationships are poorly managed. In developing
democracies in developing countries, the problem is exacerbated when different
political parties control the executive and legislative branches. Complete separation of powers often hinders
the smooth functioning of government. Especially when attempts by one agency to
moderate the activities of the other through mechanisms of checks and balances
have been resisted.
iii)
Lack
of flexibility in terms of office; The operation of the
presidential system has been criticised for being too rigid and not amenable to
changing circumstances. For example in the United States during World War II
all the scheduled elections under the stipulated electoral calendar were held
since the system did not allow for any flexibility in form of postponement.
iv)
Very
Expensive to Operate; Another disadvantage of the Presidential
system is that it is very expensive to run
Comparison of
Presidential and Parliamentary Systems
A tabulated comparison of Presidential
and Parliamentary systems has been discussed below:
|
Basis
|
Parliamentary
|
Presidential
|
|
Executive
|
Dual
|
Single
|
|
Accountability
|
Executive accountable to legislature
|
Executive not accountable to
legislature
|
|
Ministers
|
Only from among MPs
|
People outside the legislature can be
appointed
|
|
Dissolution of lower house
|
PM can dissolve before the expiry of
the term
|
President cannot dissolve
|
|
Tenure
|
Not fixed
|
Fixed
|
Let's discuss some of the arguments by experts such
as Raju Ramachandran (Senior Lawyer, Supreme Court of India), Shashi Tharoor
(Member of Parliament, Author, Former UN Staff), Upendra Baxi (Law Scholar,
Former Vice Chancellor, University of Delhi) in favor of the Indian
presidential system.
Stability:
•
There is always the possibility of the
president exercising more power at the expense of legislature, but less concern
about the stability of the presidential system.
•
By contrast, a parliamentary system can
take forever to form and can collapse at any moment. They are notorious for
being unstable all over the world.
•
India tried to address the issue of
instability by passing the Anti-Defects Act. However, this resulted in the MPs
and MLAs becoming mere servants of party leaders.
Democrats:
•
The US model is decentralized, with the
chief executive is directly elected by the people. This allows for local
expression and true autonomy.
•
The parliamentary system, on the other
hand, is unitary in nature, with a central government in control of the country
as a whole.
•
A parliamentary government is ruled by a
majority, so a sectarian government can formalize parliamentary debate.
•
In a presidential system, by contrast,
all legislators can introduce legislation and form coalitions.
•
The parliamentary federation only shares
executive power with the majority ruler. However, the presidential system
allows for the division of power among all citizens through the direct election
of the president.
Dictatorship
Likely:
Dictatorship
likely impossible in the US Model. Because the structure itself prevents it.
The
reason is as follows:-
•
States in the United States are not
governed by a federal government like they are in India
•
Both governors and legislatures of each
state are directly elected by the people
•
Legislative bodies are truly independent.
A single party controls the president and Congress, and the midterm elections
address the issue.
•
Thus, in more than 200 years of American
history, no president has been able to rule dictatorially.
•
But in India, where the parliamentary
system is essentially unified and power centralized, India has had at least two
prime ministers who have acted like dictators.
Inclusiveness:
•
The US political
system is better suited to integrate a diverse society.
•
A parliamentary
system essentially creates a majority government. This allows the creation of
sectarian governments that seize power by appeasing either the majority or
minority.
•
Decentralized
governance pursued in the US addresses the national majority trend.
•
Power sharing
limits the power of the majority over the government.
More Governance:
•
Indian parliamentarians are overly
dependent on the legislative majority, thus focusing more on politics than
policy and performance.
•
As seen in the US, a directly elected
leader of the central government ensures that there is no change in stance on
coalition support policies.
•
The presidential system defines the
president's term of office. This ensures government stability and enables
medium- and long-term planning.
•
Unlike parliamentary governments, which
can hold new elections if a no-confidence motion is introduced.
•
The presidential system also allows for
swift and decisive action. This is especially important when delays are
dangerous.
•
The system also allows the president to
appoint cabinet ministers and other senior government officials from outside
the party. This allows the government to become more professional-oriented.
Responsibilities
of Individual Ministers:
•
The parliamentary
system allows inactive ministers to place themselves under the concept of joint
responsibility.
•
A presidential
system makes it easy to remove and dismiss ineffective ministers.
•
A minister's
dismissal does not affect other ministers and destabilizes the government.
Beyond Party Politics:
•
In a parliamentary system, the prime
minister is forced to consider all issues at the dictates of the party rather
than openly.
•
This is unlike a presidential system,
where the president can see things outside the prism of party affiliation.
What are the
arguments against the presidential system of government?
Confusion
in long-term planning:
•
The change of acting president has
resulted in large-scale hiring of high-ranking officials.
•
There is confusion in the continuity and
stability of administration.
Continued
Representation of Interests Impossible:
•
A parliamentary democracy provides
built-in mechanisms for power sharing by coalition governments.
•
Coalition expresses various interests
more effectively and consistently.
•
This is not possible in a presidential
administration.
Rigid:
•
Fixed presidential terms should be
stricter.
•
The president can only be removed from
office through a cumbersome impeachment process.
•
The President is the representative of
the whole country.
•
If his character is compromised, the
whole country will be affected.
•
The parliamentary system, on the other
hand, does not undermine the nation's general reputation through the presence
of a ceremonial chief, but protects it from malicious incompetent spirits
through a motion of no confidence.
Expensive:
•
Presidential systems are expensive to
operate.
•
The parliamentary system is considered
cost-effective as the prime minister and other ministers who make up the
country's cabinet are elected by elected parliamentarians.
•
In the presidential system, on the other
hand, elected representatives must resign before being appointed ministers.
•
The presidential system also provides the
president with large amounts of public money without legislative scrutiny or
public financial scrutiny.
•
This creates opportunities for lack of
fiscal discipline and corruption of all kinds. From both sides, governance can
become a stalemate. Both the president and Congress have democratic legitimacy.
Less
democratic:
•
The presidential system allows the
president to appoint outside talent.
•
Outside talent brought in by the
president is not an elected representative.
•
This discourages outsiders from giving
independent advice to the Chief Executive.
•
It is also unrealistic to assume that the
president will choose a cabinet based primarily on his merits.
•
It is not democratic to let the president
choose the cabinet.
•
The parliamentary system addresses these
issues by allowing outside talent to be brought in for post-inaugural
elections.
Can
India have a presidential government?
•
The Constitution of India provides for a
parliamentary government.
•
Therefore, a constitutional amendment is
required to move to a presidential system.
•
In the Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973,
the Supreme Court established principles of basic structure doctrine.
•
According to this doctrine, parliament
cannot amend the core/basic feature of the Constitution while exercising its
power to amend.
•
The Court did not examine whether India's
parliamentary form of government constitutes a “basic element” of the
Constitution.
•
However, in its subsequent decisions, the
Supreme Court made a clear ruling that the parliamentary system of government
is a fundamental feature of the Constitution and therefore cannot be changed.
What can be the way forward?
•
The causes of the political slump in
India are manifold and not limited to any particular form of government.
Research Methodology
According to the topic/subject of
this article first, we researched what the Presidential system is all about and
its advantages and disadvantages, then we compared Presidential System with the
Parliamentary system of government, then we studied different views of experts
in favor and against the presidential system.
Our Thoughts / Views regarding the suitability of presidential system of
government in India-;
This
discussion is academic. A transition to a presidential system is not possible
under the current constitutional system, due to the principle of "basic
structure" proposed by the Supreme Court in 1973. The Constituent Assembly considered both
British and American models and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar considered its strengths and
weaknesses.
To
change an informed decision made by the Constituent Assembly would violate the
"basic structure" of the Constitution.
We
must make clear that we have criticized the "basic structure"
doctrine.
Concerns
about Abuse of Power:
Presidential
systems centralize power in one person, as opposed to parliamentary systems,
where the Prime Minister heads on an equal footing. As in a presidential system,
subordination to individual authority is dangerous for democracy. Excessive concentration of power in
individuals is something we must guard against. Proponents of presidential
systems often claim that they have safeguards and controls in place. However,
if the legislature is ruled by the same party as the president, a charismatic
president or "strong president" can block any move by the
legislature. On the other hand, if the legislature is dominated by a party that
opposes the president's party and decides to checkmate him, it could lead to a
governance impasse, as both the president and the legislature have democratic
legitimacy. A Diverse Country Like India Can't Work Without Consensus Building.
I
think arguments have their own lifecycle. Whenever there has been a
supermajority government, it has been brought up and discussed. From Jawaharlal
Nehru to Indira Gandhi, the presidency has been widely discussed on two
sides-is it desirable, and second, is it feasible?
To
address the second aspect first, unless the Supreme Court changes its mind,
such a change would violate the constitutional "basic structure"
determined after Kesavnanda Bharti. There is no way around this unless the
Supreme Court now presents a very different view.
Reform
of Process:
Meanwhile,
ideas are circulating to reform the electoral process to make democracy
stronger. Discussed that major loopholes in the electoral process have been
closed, from restricting political party spending to limit spending, conducting
simultaneous elections, and declaring results for combinations of polling
stations rather than constituencies. The present parliamentary system has stood
the test of almost 70 years. Instead of changing the system, let's reform it
from the ground up and clean up the electoral process.
Conclusion/Discussion;
Thus,
the Presidential form of Government prevails as one of the best ways of
Government in Democratic nations like the United States. Whatever form of
Government, its purpose should be the welfare of the people of the country.
References/Bibliography
- https://www.thehindu.com/
- https://byjus.com/
[1] The Protectorate, officially the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and
Ireland, refers to the period from 16 December 1653 to 25 May 1659 during
which England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and associated territories were joined together in the Commonwealth of England, governed by a Lord
Protector.
[2] Vile, M. J. (1967). The separation of powers.
In: Greene, J. P., & Pole, J. R. (Eds.). (2008). A companion to the American Revolution, Ch. 87. John Wiley &
Sons.
[3] Sundquist,
James L. (1997). "The U.S. Presidential System as a Model for the
World". In Baaklini, Abdo I.; Desfosses, Helen (eds.).
[4] Ker-Lindsay, James (2006). "Presidential Power and
Authority in the Republic of Cyprus".
[5] The Watergate
scandal was a major political scandal in the United States involving the
administration of President Richard Nixon from 1972 to 1974 that led to Nixon's resignation.
Article Information
PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNANCE – DOES INDIA NEED IT?
Authors: DHRUV SHRIVASTAVA
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/02/13
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.