Presidential Form of Democracy
- There are two major system of democracy, that are, Presidential form of Democracy and the Parliamentary form of Democracy. These two differ in several aspects like the head of the state, head of the government, tenure etc.
- Under the Presidential system, there is a republican government in which the head of the government leads an executive branch. This branch is entirely different from the legislative branch.
- Under this system, the head of the state and the head of the government in most cases are same. This head in common terms is called the ‘President’.
- The title “President” has persisted from a time when such a person presided over the governing body himself. This was in the case of the Continental Congress of the United States. Now to the time where executive function is split into a separate branch of the government.
- This form of Democracy is a dominant form of government in the mainland Americas. It is also an accepted system in the West Africa and Central Asia.
- Advantages of this system are as follows:
- Direct Elections: Under this arrangement, the head i.e. the President is directly elected by the people. So his powers become more legitimate instead of the leader, who is indirectly chosen.
- Faster decisions: In the Presidential system of the government, the President can take faster decisions as the tenure of the Executive is fixed. Thus, they can execute their policies without any fear or favour.
- Rigid separation of powers: Under this set-up the separation of powers between the executive and the legislature is stricter.
- Stable executive: This arrangement promises a more stable executive because the officials have a fixed tenure and are not in the office according to the whims and fancies of the legislature. They can execute the policies without any fear or favour.
- Proficient Government: Since the President is free to choose the representatives in the Executive branch as per his will, he can choose experts from various backgrounds to head several departments and ministries. It will make sure that the people who are capable and knowledgeable are selected. This will increase the effectiveness of the Government.
- Disadvantages of this apparatus are as follows:
- Tyrannical rule: The rule of the President can turn oppressive and autocratic because he acts more or less according to his discretion.
- Lack of responsiveness: As the tenure of the executive is fixed, so they are not continuously accountable to the legislature. This in turn leads to a lack of answerability to the people.
- Deadlock between the two branches of the government: Due to a profound separation of powers, there is a possibility that there arises a stand-off between the Executive and the Legislature on any policy. This is more prevalent where the Legislature is not dominated by the President’s Political Party. This can simply lead to inefficiency and wastage of precious resources and time.
- Spoils system: As the President is free to choose the Executive as per his will, he can choose his close associates or relatives or family members or people from influential backgrounds. This simply disrupts the system and makes it more corrupt.
India and U.S.A – A Critique
- First we shall look at the differences between the two countries in terms of election procedure, term, powers and other aspects. These dissimilarities are enlisted below:
- Manner of Election: US president is more or less directly elected whereas the Indian president is indirectly elected. The advantage of the directly elected head of the government is the stability of the government.
- Real and Titular Head: The US President is both the Head of the State and Head of the Government, whereas the Indian president is only the head of the State. President of the US is the real executive. Indian President like the British monarch is only a titular head.
- Dissolving the legislature: The Indian President can dissolve the Parliament while the US President does not have such powers.
- Veto Power and re-signing of Bills: The Indian President has less veto powers as compared to the US President. He can said the bill only once for reconsideration. If the bill is passed in the Parliament again even by a simple majority then the President is required to sign the Bill. On the other hand, the US President can veto the bill passed by the Congress. But he needs to sign the bill if it is passed again with a two-thirds majority of both the houses.
- Term of Office: The American President can hold the office only for a period of Four years and is eligible for a re-election only once. Whereas, the Indian President is incumbent to the office for a duration of five years and is eligible for re-election any number of times.
- Liability to the Legislature: The Indian President is responsible towards both the houses of the Parliament- Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. Contrarily, the US President is not part of the Legislature and thus is not responsible to it.
- Removal Process: Both the American and Indian Presidents can only be removed from the office through In India either house can initiate impeachment proceedings against the president and with the concurrence of the other house can impeach the President. In US the power to impeach solely lies with the Senate.
- Independence in terms of Office Holding Capacity: The American President appoints the cabinet ministers and is empowered to dismiss them. The cabinet members are not responsible to the Congress. The US President has full power and authority to form the policies independently without any outside interference. On the other side, the Indian President acts according to the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers (CoM). The CoM takes all the decisions and executes all the policies under the President’s name.
Why Is India Suited for Presidential form of Government
Presently, India is based on a parliamentary form of government where the head of the government is different from the head of the state. But in recent contexts of maladministration, corruption, defection, lack of specialized cadre; it has been pointed that it is high time for India to shift to a Presidential form of Government. Following are some of the facts which highlight favour of India’s case to this transition:
- Lack of Specialists in Cabinet: Under the Presidential Government, the President is free to choose the executives as per his choice. So he can simply choose the experts from various fields in respective ministries and departments. Unlike, the Parliamentary system, he will not have to fall back on the leaders of the coalition government.
- Focusing on Politics instead of Policy: The trend of Coalition Governments at the Centre has turned the Governments to focus more on retaining power and pleasing the leaders. In return the actual and meaningful policies are hardly put in effect. Whereas, in the Presidential system the tenure is fixed so the policies and decisions can be made without any fear or favour.
- Will encourage opposition parties to perform their real task: The job of the Legislature is to pass the laws after debating the pros and the cons of the same. These flaws are brought in by the Opposition parties. But in Parliamentary form of Government, the Opposition is more engaged in toppling down to the ruling government. Thus, when the tenure will be fixed then the Opposition will be more engaged in bringing out the flaws in the policies. Therefore, the public will be more aware regarding the decisions and will be able to form informed decisions during elections.
- Applying Separation of Powers Doctrine: The separation of powers doctrine is enforced in a real sense in a Presidential form of Government instead of name-sake enforcement in Parliamentary form of Government. All the three organs of the Government- Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary are separated not only in the powers but in institution as well. Members of these organs yield their powers directly from the people rather than from the officers of other organs. Therefore, the doctrine of separation of powers is valid in true sense.
- Will build a rigid system of checks and balances: In the Parliamentary form of Government, there is a rubber-stamp majority in the Lok Sabha. This undermines the checks and balances as the Opposition in Legislature cannot hold the executive accountable. This leads the Executive to go unchecked with a Parliamentary majority. Thus, with the Presidential system in place, a system of checks and balances will be placed strongly with an independent Legislature.
- Quick decision making: As in the case of the Presidential form of Democracy, the President is an independent officer to make decisions and pass policies as per his will without any external influence. So, he needs not to follow the advice or be answerable for any decision to the Opposition. But in Parliamentary form of Democracy it is a vice versa situation, thus, leading to slow and ineffective decision making process.
- Reduction of Maladministration: In the present scenario of a Parliamentary Government, officials take some decisions just to please their superiors or to earn some extra benefits. Sometimes, the work is delayed just to stay a little more in power and take “extra” benefits associated with that position. These all things will be reduced with incoming of the Presidential Government and a fixed tenure of the officers.
- Fear of Dictatorship is invalid: In India in the year 1975, in the emergency period, the then Prime Minister passed several decisions which led to people say that she has turned to an autocrat. Thus, the fear of dictatorship is pointless as it does not relate to the form of Government in place.
Finally, it is not easy to incorporate these changes in the current system until the Indian Constitution is amended. It is because of the “Basic Structure Doctrine” as passed by the Supreme Court. This doctrine has been accepted by the people without any ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’. Also Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting Committee, made a balance sheet regarding both the merits and demerits of British and well as American Model, and it is considered as a calculative and informed decision. Thus to change this informed choice an effort that is quite enormous has to be made.
Conclusion:
It is the policies of the Government and not its type, which determine the evils and virtues of the Society. Both the types of the Democracies have its own ‘pros’ and ‘cons’.
This Article is authored by:- Bhoomika ( MCMDAV-36, Chd.)
For Judiciary Answer Writing, Click!!!