Introduction and Preface
Any Nation State that is a governed by a Constitutional system has certain unique features attributable to it. One such distinct feature is the System of governance i.e. Presidential or Parliamentary. Let us discuss the relevance of these two types of systems and see whether India needs to switch over to the presidential system.

Parliamentary and Presidential Systems of Government

To understand the difference between these two systems of Government, let us take the examples of India and United States of America.

1. The fundamental difference between Indian Government and U.S. Government is that ours is a Parliamentary form of Government and U.S. Government is Presidential form of Government.

2. Parliamentary form of Government means the Prime Minister shall be the appointed head of the Government, whereas, in case of Presidential form of Government, the President shall be the head of Government.

3. In India, almost all major powers are vested in the Prime Minister of India and in U.S. the President is the most powerful authority.

4. Both Indian Parliament and US Congress are bicameral. Parliament consists of the President, Upper House and Lower House.

5. The Executive in India is inseparably linked to the Legislature. The Executive in India means the Council of Ministers. In U.S., the President himself is the Executive and hence there is a clear distinction between the Executive and the Legislature.

6. In India number of representatives in the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) are decided in a proportional basis, i.e. ratio between number of representatives from each state and its population should be same for all. Whereas in the U.S.A., the number of representatives in Senate is equal and always 2 for each state.

7. In the Constitution of India, a balance of power has been depicted among the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. Whereas, it is known that the Judiciary of the U.S.A. is the most powerful.

8. In India, the President is regarded as the “Ornamental Head of the State” and certain special powers are vested in him/her. He is elected indirectly by a special process and not directly by the people. Whereas, the U.S. President is directly elected by the people and it is said that the U.S. President is the most powerful all over the world.

9. Government of both India and United States is divided into three parts, viz the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary. The Legislative makes the law, the Judiciary interprets the law and the Executive enforces the law.

10. In a Parliamentary form of government, the executive branch of the government derives it’s authority from the legislative branch while in a Presidential form of government, the executive branch is independent of the legislative branch.

11. The Executive branch of United States is led by the President and while the President of India also serves as the head of the Executive Branch in India, he can only can act on Prime Minister’s advise, who is in turn elected indirectly through the Lok Sabha. In contrast, President of U.S. is completely independent from the US Congress.

12. All major differences between the Indian and the U.S government can be brought down to the difference between the offices of the President of United States and the President of India. President of US has the mandate of the people, the freedom to pass laws, the supreme command of the Armed Forces and the freedom to shape the foreign policy of the country while the President of India is merely a figure head.

Why India Adopted Parliamentary System?

India’s decision to go for a parliamentary system was really made by Jawaharlal Nehru-led Union Constitution Committee and not the Constituent Assembly. The rationale given in the assembly was our leaders were “familiar” with the parliamentary system. Also, Dr. B R Ambedkar had argued that the presidential system offered more stable but less accountable governments.

•    A presidential system centralises power in one individual unlike the parliamentary system, where the Prime Minister is the first among equals. The surrender to the authority of one individual, as in the presidential system, is dangerous for democracy. The over-centralisation of power in one individual is something we have to guard against.

•    Those who argue in favour of a presidential system often state that the safeguards and checks are in place: that a powerful President can be stalled by a powerful legislature. But if the legislature is dominated by the same party to which the President belongs, a charismatic President or a “strong President” may prevent any move from the legislature.

•    On the other hand, if the legislature is dominated by a party opposed to the President’s party and decides to checkmate him, it could lead to a stalemate in governance because both the President and the legislature would have democratic legitimacy.

•    A diverse country like India cannot function without consensus-building. This “winner takes it all” approach, which is a necessary consequence of the presidential system, is likely to lead to a situation where the views of an individual can ride roughshod over the interests of different segments.

Deficiencies in Parliamentary System

Our parliamentary system is a perversity only the British could have devised: to vote for a legislature in order to form the executive.

•    It has created a unique breed of legislator, largely unqualified to legislate, who has sought election only in order to wield executive power.

•    There is no genuine separation of powers: the legislature cannot truly hold the executive accountable since the government wields the majority in the House.

•     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 25 years till 2014, our system has also produced coalition governments which have been obliged to focus more on politics than on policy or performance. It has forced governments to concentrate less on governing than on staying in office, and obliged them to cater to the lowest common denominator of their coalitions, since withdrawal of support can bring governments down.

•    The parliamentary system has distorted the voting preferences of an electorate that knows which individuals it wants but not necessarily which parties or policies. Voters who want to see, say, Narendra Modi as Prime Minister or Mamata Banerjee as Chief Minister, have to vote for an MP they may not care for, merely because he belongs to Mr. Modi’s or Ms. Banerjee’s party.

A case for Presidential System in India

•    There are two common myths about the US system:
1.    It can become a dictatorship.
2.    It would harm India’s diversity.

The truth is just the opposite. It is the Indian system that produces autocrats and causes communal and ethnic fissures.

•    In the 230-year history of the US, no president has acted autocratically. But in just 71 years of our history, we can cite a few prime ministers who have been terribly autocratic.

•    A single person cannot control the presidential system. A president is not akin to our prime minister. He has no control over state governments. Even at the Centre, he doesn’t control the legislature nor can he make laws or approve budgets.

•    President cannot use the investigative agencies at will. He cannot even pick his cabinet without the legislature’s approval.

•    The presidential system is the best defence against one-man rule. It provides better protection against corruption, because all ministers are directly answerable to the legislature.

•    As for diversity, the last thing a heterogeneous society needs is a system of majority rule. America’s population is even more diverse than ours. It has people of 15 different races, who practice every religion on the planet and speak 350 languages. Their system offers true federalism, giving local communities the autonomy to serve different ethnicities.

•    A system of directly elected chief executives at all levels – panchayat chiefs, town mayors, Chief Ministers (or Governors) and a national President – elected for a fixed term of office, invulnerable to the whims of the legislature, and with clearly defined authority in their respective domains – would permit India to deal more efficiently with its critical economic and social challenges.

•    Cabinet posts would not be limited to those who are electable rather than those who are able. At the end of a fixed period of time — say the same five years we currently accord to our Lok Sabha — 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 fear that an elected President could become a Caesar is ill-founded since the President’s power would be balanced by directly elected chief executives in the States. In any case, the Emergency demonstrated that even a parliamentary system can be distorted to permit autocratic rule. Dictatorship is not the result of a particular type of governmental system.

•    Indeed, the President would have to work with Parliament to get his budget through or to pass specific Bills. India’s fragmented polity, with dozens of political parties in the fray, makes a U.S.-style two-party gridlock in Parliament impossible.

•    An Indian presidency, instead of facing a monolithic opposition, would have the opportunity to build issue-based coalitions on different issues, mobilising different temporary alliances of different smaller parties from one policy to the next – the opposite of the dictatorial steamroller some fear a presidential system could produce.

•    Any politician with aspirations to rule India as President will have to win the support of people beyond his or her home turf; he or she will have to reach out to different groups, interests, and minorities. And since the directly elected President will not have coalition partners to blame for his or her inaction, a presidential term will have to be justified in terms of results, and accountability will be direct and personal.

Conclusion

Democracy is vital for India’s survival: we are right to be proud of it. But few Indians are proud of the kind of politics our democracy has inflicted upon us. With the needs and challenges of one-sixth of humanity before our leaders, we must have a democracy that delivers progress to our people. Changing to a presidential system is the best way of ensuring a democracy that works. It is time for a change.