Datasets:
jbp123
/
hello

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
1
instruction
stringlengths
1
84
input
stringlengths
1
85
output
stringlengths
1
83
parliamentary system. The parliamentary government is also
known as ‘responsible government’ as the cabinet (the real
executive) is accountable to the Parliament and stays in office so
long as it enjoys the latter’s confidence. It is described as
‘Westminster model of government’ after the location of the British
Parliament, where the parliamentary system originated.
In the past, the British constitutional and political experts
described the Prime Minister as ‘primus inter pares’ (first among
equals) in relation to the cabinet. In the recent period, the Prime
significantly vis-a-vis the cabinet. He has come to play a
‘dominant’ role in the British politico-administrative system. Hence,
the later political analysts, like Cross-man, Mackintosh and others
have described the British system of government as ‘prime
ministerial government’. The same description holds good in the
Indian context too.
FEATURES OF PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT
The features or principles of parliamentary government in India
are:
1. Nominal and Real Executives
The President is the nominal executive (de jure executive or titular
executive) while the Prime Minister is the real executive (de facto
executive). Thus, the President is head of the State, while the
Prime Minister is head of the government. Article 74 provides for a
council of ministers headed by the Prime Minister to aid and
advise the President in the exercise of his functions. The advice
so tendered is binding on the President1 .
2. Majority Party Rule
The political party which secures majority seats in the Lok Sabha
forms the government. The leader of that party is appointed as the
Prime Minister by the President; other ministers are appointed by
the President on the advice of the prime minister. However, when
no single party gets the majority, a coalition of parties may be
invited by the President to form the government.
3. Collective Responsibility
This is the bedrock principle of parliamentary government. The
ministers are collectively responsible to the Parliament in general
and to the Lok Sabha in particular (Article 75). They act as a
team, and swim and sink together. The principle of collective
responsibility implies that the Lok Sabha can remove the ministry
(i.e., council of ministers headed by the prime minister) from office
by passing a vote of no confidence.
4. Political Homogeneity
Usually members of the council of ministers belong to the same
political party, and hence they share the same political ideology. In
case of coalition government, the ministers are bound by
The ministers are members of both the legislature and the
executive. This means that a person cannot be a minister without
being a member of the Parliament. The Constitution stipulates that
a minister who is not a member of the Parliament for a period of
six consecutive months ceases to be a minister.
6. Leadership of the Prime Minister
The Prime Minister plays the leadership role in this system of
government. He is the leader of council of ministers, leader of the
Parliament and leader of the party in power. In these capacities,
he plays a significant and highly crucial role in the functioning of
the government.
7. Dissolution of the Lower House
The lower house of the Parliament (Lok Sabha) can be dissolved
by the President on recommendation of the Prime Minister. In
other words, the prime minister can advise the President to
dissolve the Lok Sabha before the expiry of its term and hold fresh
elections. This means that the executive enjoys the right to get the
legislature dissolved in a parliamentary system.
8. Secrecy
The ministers operate on the principle of secrecy of procedure
and cannot divulge information about their proceedings, policies
and decisions. They take the oath of secrecy before entering their
office. The oath of secrecy to the ministers is administered by the
President.
FEATURES OF PRESIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT
Unlike the Indian Constitution, the American Constitution provides
for the presidential form of government. The features of the
American presidential system of government are as follows:
(a) The American President is both the head of the State and
the head of government. As the head of State, he occupies a
ceremonial position. As the head of government, he leads the
executive organ of government.
(b) The President is elected by an electoral college for a fixed
tenure of four years. He cannot be removed by the Congress
except by impeachment for a grave unconstitutional act.
(c) The President governs with the help of a cabinet or a smaller
body called ‘Kitchen Cabinet’. It is only an advisory body and
consists of non-elected departmental secretaries. They are
selected and appointed by him, are responsible only to him,
and can be removed by him any time.
(d) The President and his secretaries are not responsible to the
Congress for their acts. They neither possess membership in
the Congress nor attend its sessions.
(e) The President cannot dissolve the House of
Representatives–the lower house of the Congress.
(f) The doctrine of separation of powers is the basis of the
American presidential system. The legislative, executive and
judicial powers of the government are separated and vested
MERITS OF THE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
The parliamentary system of government has the following merits:
1. Harmony Between Legislature and Executive
The greatest advantage of the parliamentary system is that it
ensures harmonious relationship and cooperation between the
legislative and executive organs of the government. The executive
is a part of the legislature and both are interdependent at work. As
a result, there is less scope for disputes and conflicts between the
two organs.
2. Responsible Government
By its very nature, the parliamentary system establishes a
responsible government. The ministers are responsible to the
Parliament for all their acts of omission and commission. The
Parliament exercises control over the ministers through various
devices like question hour, discussions, adjournment motion, no
confidence motion, etc.
3. Prevents Despotism
Under this system, the executive authority is vested in a group of
individuals (council of ministers) and not in a single person. This
dispersal of authority checks the dictatorial tendencies of the
executive. Moreover, the executive is responsible to the
Parliament and can be removed by a no-confidence motion.
4. Ready Alternative Government
In case the ruling party loses its majority, the Head of the State
can invite the opposition party to form the government. This
means an alternative government can be formed without fresh
elections. Hence, Dr. Jennings says, ‘the leader of the opposition
is the alternative prime minister’.
5. Wide Representation
In a parliamentary system, the executive consists of a group of
DEMERITS OF THE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
In spite of the above merits, the parliamentary system suffers from
the following demerits:
1. Unstable Government
The parliamentary system does not provide a stable government.
There is no guarantee that a government can survive its tenure.
The ministers depend on the mercy of the majority legislators for
their continuity and survival in office. A no-confidence motion or
political defection or evils of multiparty coalition can make the
government unstable. The Government headed by Morarji Desai,
Charan Singh, V.P. Singh, Chandra Sekhar, Deva Gowda and I.K.
Gujral are some such examples.
2. No Continuity of Policies
The parliamentary system is not conductive for the formulation
and implementation of longterm policies. This is due to the
uncertainty of the tenure of the government. A change in the ruling
party is usually followed by changes in the policies of the
government. For example, the Janata Government headed by
Morarji Desai in 1977 reversed a large number of policies of the
previous Congress Government. The same was repeated by the
Congress government after it came back to power in 1980.
3. Dictatorship of the Cabinet
When the ruling party enjoys absolute majority in the Parliament,
the cabinet becomes autocratic and exercises nearly unlimited
powers. H.J. Laski says that the parliamentary system gives the
executive an opportunity for tyranny. Ramsay Muir, the former
British Prime Minister, also complained of the ‘dictatorship of the
cabinet’2. This phenomena was witnessed during the era of Indira
Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi.
4. Against Separation of Powers
In the parliamentary system, the legislature and the executive are
together and inseparable. The cabinet acts as the leader of
legislature as well as the executive. As Bagehot points out, ‘the
cabinet is a hyphen that joins the buckle that binds the executive
and legislative departments together.’ Hence, the whole system of
government goes against the letter and spirit of the theory of
separation of powers3. In fact, there is a fusion of powers.
5. Government by Amateurs
The parliamentary system is not conducive to administrative
efficiency as the ministers are not experts in their fields. The
Prime Minister has a limited choice in the selection of ministers;
his choice is restricted to the members of Parliament alone and
does not extend to external talent. Moreover, the ministers devote
most of their time to parliamentary work, cabinet meetings and
party activities.
REASONS FOR ADOPTING PARLIAMENTARY
SYSTEM
A plea was made in favour of US presidential system of
government in the Constituent Assembly4. But, the founding
fathers preferred the British parliamentary system due to the
following reasons:
Table 12.1 Comparing Parliamentary and Presidential Systems
Parliamentary System Presidential System
Features: Features:
1. Dual executive. 1. Single executive.
2. Majority party rule 2. President and legislators elected
3. Collective separately for a fixed term.
responsibility. 3. Non-responsibility
4. Political homogeneity 4. Political homogeneity may not
5. Double membership. exist.
6. Leadership of prime 5. Single membership
minister. 6. Domination of president.
7. Dissolution of Lower 7. No dissolution of Lower House.
House. 8. Separation of powers.
8. Fusion of powers.
Merits: Demerits:
1. Harmony between 1. Conflict between legislature and
legislature and executive.
executive. 2. Non-responsible government.
2. Responsible 3. May lead to autocracy.
government. 4. Narrow representation.
3. Prevents despotism.
4. Wide representation.
Demerits: Merits:
1. Unstable 1. Stable government.
government. 2. Definiteness in policies.
2. No continuity of 3. Based on separation of powers.
policies. 4. Government by experts
3. Against separation of
powers
4. Government by
amateurs.
1. Familiarity with the System
The Constitution-makers were somewhat familiar with the
parliamentary system as it had been in operation in India during
the British rule. K.M. Munshi argued that, ‘For the last thirty or
forty years, some kind of responsibility has been introduced in the
governance of this country. Our constitutional traditions have
become Parliamentary. After this experience, why should we go
back and buy a novel experience.’5
2. Preference to More Responsibility
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar pointed out in the Constituent Assembly that ‘a
democratic executive must satisfy two conditions: stability and
responsibility. Unfortunately, it has not been possible so far to
devise a system which can ensure both in equal degree. The
American system gives more stability but less responsibility. The
British system, on the other hand, gives more responsibility but
less stability. The Draft Constitution in recommending the
parliamentary system of Executive has preferred more
responsibility to more stability.’6
3. Need to Avoid Legislative–Executive Conflicts
The framers of the Constitution wanted to avoid the conflicts
between the legislature and the executive which are bound to
occur in the presidential system prevalent in USA. They thought
that an infant democracy could not afford to take the risk of a
perpetual cleavage, feud or conflict or threatened conflict between
these two organs of the government. They wanted a form of
government that would be conductive to the manifold
development of the country.
4. Nature of Indian Society
India is one of the most heterogeneous States and most complex
giving representation to various section, interests and regions in
the government. This promotes a national spirit among the people
and builds a united India.
Whether the parliamentary system should be continued or
should be replaced by the presidential system has been a point of
discussion and debate in our country since the 1970s. This matter
was considered in detail by the Swaran Singh Committee
appointed by the Congress government in 1975. The committee
opined that the parliamentary system has been doing well and
DISTINCTION BETWEEN INDIAN AND BRITISH
MODELS
The parliamentary system of government in India is largely based
on the British parliamentary system. However, it never became a
replica of the British system and differs in the following respects:
1. India has a republican system in place of British monarchical
system. In other words, the Head of the State in India (that
is, President) is elected, while the Head of the State in
Britain (that is, King or Queen) enjoys a hereditary position.
2. The British system is based on the doctrine of the
sovereignty of Parliament, while the Parliament is not
supreme in India and enjoys limited and restricted powers
due to a written Constitution, federal system, judicial review
and fundamental rights7 .
3. In Britain, the prime minister should be a member of the
Lower House (House of Commons) of the Parliament. In
India, the prime minister may be a member of any of the two
Houses of Parliament.8
4. Usually, the members of Parliament alone are appointed as
ministers in Britain. In India, a person who is not a member
of Parliament can also be appointed as minister, but for a
maximum period of six months.
5. Britain has the system of legal responsibility of the minister
while India has no such system. Unlike in Britain, the
ministers in India are not required to countersign the official
acts of the Head of the State.
6. ‘Shadow cabinet’ is an unique institution of the British
cabinet system. It is formed by the opposition party to
balance the ruling cabinet and to prepare its members for
future ministerial office. There is no such institution in India.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1. The 42nd and 44th Amendment Acts of 1976 and 1978
respectively have made the ministerial advice binding
on the president.
2. How Britain is Governed is a popular book written by
him.
3. This theory was propounded by Montesquieu, a French
political thinker, in his book The Spirit of Laws (1748) to
promote individual liberty. He stated that concentration
of powers in one person or a body of persons would
result in despotism and negate individual liberty.
4. K.T. Shah favoured the adoption of the presidential
system.
5. Constituent Assembly Debates, Volume VII, p. 284–5.
6. Constituent Assembly Debates, Volume VII, p. 32.
7. For details in this regard, see the section on the
‘Sovereignty of Parliament’ in Chapter 22.
8. For example, three prime ministers, Indira Gandhi
13 Federal System
P
olitical scientists have classified governments into unitary
and federal on the basis of the nature of relations between
the national government and the regional governments. By
definition, a unitary government is one in which all the powers are
vested in the national government and the regional governments, if
at all exist, derive their authority from the national government. A
federal government, on the other hand, is one in which powers are