T H E W O R L D J O U R N A L O N J U R I S T I C P O L I T Y

Transcription

1 PARLIAMENTARY v. PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM: A COMPARATIVE STUDY APPRAISING DEMOCRACY, EFFICIENCY AND ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNANCE Abhinav K. Shukla Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur INTRODUCTION The parliamentary system originated with the Glorious Revolution of the United Kingdom in 1688 while the presidential system came in existence after 1783 as a result of the American Revolution. Further there was huge spurt of nations coming up as the colonial rule loosened and several nations attaining freedom, the deliberation on how the nations and its citizens should be governed kept on evolving whether it should be parliamentary system or the presidential model. The question that how should they govern themselves had just 2 models as a choice in the form of the UK and US model and to opt either of them. Mostly the nations with colonial setup already had some established administration in the parliamentary form because whereever the British had their colonies, they use to give some or the other powers, functions and duties to its people making a structural setup of local, provincial and central bodies. They also established certain legislative bodies with some limited voting rights and indirect election process. So such institutions already existed in these colonies. For ex. The Government of India Act, 1935 is the biggest contributor in the Indian Constitution specially in terms of the structural aspect 1. So India and several other colonies such as Australia, Canada, etc. carried the basis of the parliamentary model of the UK and adopted the same in their own democracies. Most of the colonies didn t give a second thought on deciding between these 2 models as the Parliamentary model was very efficient and convenient for them as it didn t require any complete structural reorganization rather only strengthening of the existing institutions was needed. Like in case of India, there was hardly any discussion or debate on the alternate option of adopting the US model because the British had already moulded India in a certain organizational structure 2. In the era of evolution of colonies into nations, US itself was not a very old establishment, hence its influence in parts of the world was not as that of the UK due to which very few presidential models exist. Although they can be broadly classified in these 2 formats, but even within these 2, there are specific nuances which vary from country to country which would be further discussed here in the context of democracy and governance Benegal Narsing Rau, "The Parliamentary System of Government in India," Washington Law Review and State Bar Journal 24, no. 1 (February 1949): THE WORLD JOURNAL ON JURISTIC POLITY ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

2 PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM The parliamentary form of government is a structure in which the members of the legislature are directly elected by the people and on the basis of the majority attained in the legislature, the government i.e. executive is formed. The eligibility or a pre condition to become a part of the executive is that first one needs to become the member of the parliament and then only, subsequently one can become a part of the executive. The examples of the major parliamentary systems are India, UK, Australia, Canada, etc. Advantages: Promoting Democracy The features of the parliamentary system facilitate democracy. The feature of collective responsibility i.e. the executive shall be collectively responsible to the legislature promotes democracy. The people through direct elections choose the members of the legislature and giving them the power that the council of ministers shall be answerable to the house of people in a way creates a system of check and balance and increases the accountability of the executive. This means that the executive shall not take any arbitrary decisions and actions. To consider any specific model, Article 75 of the Constitution of India provides that The Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of The People. 3 The election process is a feature which promotes democracy. The members of the house are elected directly by the voting of people. Then subsequent to this election of members, the Prime Minister is being selected based on the consensus of members of the Parliament forming majority. In this way it can be said that, since the manner and procedure of election and formation of the executive is based on the consensus model, the key decisions shall also be based on the will of the majority. Though this whole process of election and selection, in a way the people get to participate in the affairs and matters of the country and give their opinion in an indirect manner. The political parties contesting elections, have to release manifestos for the general public based on which their further plan of action is revealed. The presence of opposition and the role being played by them works as an additional check and balance on the government, ensuring no arbitrariness on their behalf. Since the constituencies are based on the population, so there is equal representation of all the parts irrespective of being rural or urban area. Law making always plays a significant role in the nation and the primary role of the members of parliament being directly elected by the people is making of law so it can be inferred that the laws are being made as per the people s will. Promoting Governance The parliamentary system is based on the consensus and majority of the elected members who form the part of the government. This promotes efficient and accountable governance because the elected representatives come from the ground level and amongst the people 3 Article 75 (3), The Constitution of India, THE WORLD JOURNAL ON JURISTIC POLITY ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

3 and while making certain macro level policies, they provide some good inputs and grass root working which the top level bureaucrats and technocrats lack in themselves. The feature of permanent bureaucracy which is present in all the parliamentary system also ensures good governance as they have long experience of administration. The fact that the executive is formed on the basis of majority in legislature, this ensures that the decisions of the executive are not hindered by the legislature. The matters such as the foreign relations are in the complete domain of the executive and the legislature has no role to play in this. Disadvantages: The parliamentary system have certain disadvantages against the democracy. Considering the model of Indian parliament, the elected members of the house of people have constitutional identity, but after the insertion of the anti defection law through the 52 nd constitutional amendment act 4, the identity and purpose of the members have been limited only in numbers to provide strength to the majority, bound by the party whip having no individual identity. With the inclusion of the Non of The above (NOTA) option by the election commission of India, no significant change could be witnessed as even if maximum votes are in favour of the NOTA, still the person having the 2 nd highest vote share would win the election. It should be strengthened and certain rules like if more than 60% of the votes are in favour of NOTA, then re-elections shall happen must be adopted. This will make the system somewhat similar to the referendum process of Switzerland and the right to recall option. The existence of multiparty in most of the parliamentary systems is a bane for the very spirit of democracy as due to the criterion of majority to form the government, it gives way for coalition governments, which is against both, democracy as well as governance. The parliamentary system also has some drawbacks against the governance. The cabinet and the ministers have to be a member of either of the houses, only the they can become part of the executive. This is against the concept of specialized and focused approach and rather promotes a general and casual approach. The aim of appointing the ministers is not to promote governance, rather it is to keep all satisfied so that the magical numbers of the political majority gets safe. In this context, considering the Indian model, it has been since long debated that due to the discrepancies of parliamentary system, it should adopt certain features of the presidential system into it, the primary being the appointment of non elected experts into the cabinet following the US model 5. Also the permanent bureaucracy sometimes becomes more powerful due to the permanent tenure that they have. The authority of implementation lies solely with them. This effects the governance process as the conflicts between the temporary and the permanent bureaucracy is often evident. Thus certain procedural hangovers are being created affecting the governance. 4 Schedule 10, 52 nd Constitutional Amendment Act, Belliappa, C M. "What Kind of Democracy in India? Case for the Presidential System." Economic and Political Weekly 2, no. 36 (1967): THE WORLD JOURNAL ON JURISTIC POLITY ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

4 PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM The Presidential system of government follows the strict separation of power and thus the elections of the executive and the legislature are completely independent to each other. The executive is being formed by way of direct election of the President, who is authorised to choose his cabinet and ministers accordingly. The prominent example of nations with this model are the United States of America and France. Advantages Promoting Democracy Since the legislature is independent and separate from the executive, the elected members of the legislature retain their own identity. Democracy is promoted because the people elect two different institutions for two different purposes and there is no inter dependency of the two institutions. The members of the house are allowed to speak against and disagree with their own party even if it is part of the executive. The freedom of legislators from the boundation of their party rules and guidelines such as the party whip ensures the separation of powers between the Executive and the Legislature which in a way ensures democracy. Since there is no multiparty system and no criteria for majority in legislature to form the government, the ill effects of post-election coalition do not exist. Promoting Governance A Presidential system ensures a stable and strong Government. The President is empowered to make skilled and efficient cabinet by the way of direct appointment of technocrats and professionals as the ministers. The existence of strict separation of power and the technocracy and expertise that the cabinet holds along with it, such features facilitate the good governance by way of fast and efficient decisions. Disadvantages Although the Presidential form of Government is having certain advantages but it has some drawbacks as well. The complete independence of the executive from the legislature might result to dictatorship which goes against the very spirit of democracy 6. Since the top level bureaucracy is temporary, with each upcoming President it gets completely changed which risks stability and hinders the implementation programs and plans. Rather than the skill based bureaucrats, the near and dear ones of the President gets appointed. They lack the understanding of functioning of the government which might result into procedural delays and inefficiencies. A major drawback of the Presidential system is that the governance remains in very few hands which is against the democracy and governance as well. Although the President is autonomous in most of the cases, but in certain very important issues, where the executive must have an exclusive domain, the legislature is given some 6 Kathryn A. Watts, "Controlling Presidential Control," Michigan Law Review 114, no. 5 (March 2016): THE WORLD JOURNAL ON JURISTIC POLITY ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

5 powers to override the executive. In this matter, the foreign relations of the US model come into play. Any treaty entered into by the executive is subject to approval by the synergy of the legislature. This is certainly a hindrance in the governance of the country. Due to this the executive takes the other path by signing a treaty in the nomenclature of an agreement as it has been done recently in the Iran agreement 7. CONCLUSION The two models of government i.e. Parliamentary and the Presidential have worked successfully in terms of facilitating governance and ensuring democracy, given the differences in terms of the culture, geographical and demographic conditions, several pros and cons do exist. To declare any specific model as better than the other would be no justice. There are a few examples such as Pakistan where the very objective of democracy has failed. Pakistan was established as a Republic parliamentary democracy, but since its institutions mainly the 3 organs of the state were not very strong in their working, so with time the military and army took over the control and indirectly they govern the country which stands against the democracy 8. In this context, the conclusion can be drawn referring to the lines of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in his speech given at the Constituent Assembly before the final Constitution of India was adopted on 26 th November He said that however good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it, happen to be a bad lot. However, had a Constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it, happen to be a good lot. The working of a Constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of the Constitution. The Constitution can provide only the organs of State such as the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The factors on which the working of those organs of the State depend are the people and the political parties they will set up as their instruments to carry out their wishes and their politics. 9. This means that the Constitution might provide with the best structure and set of duties for the nation and its citizens, may it be parliamentary form or presidential model, but if it is not carried away with the very purpose and idea of democracy, then any model can fail. Thus, the success and failure of both the parliamentary and presidential forms of government depends on the people because the people strengthen the constitution and its working, not the structure. In this regard, it can be said that rather than following a strict model which has been adopted since the beginning of democracy in the nation, some plausible changes can be adopted taking inferences from the success of certain specific features of the 2 models of democracy, which ever would be best suitable and adaptable for the country and its people. Instead of making of complete shift from the parliamentary to the presidential or vice versa, only some specific features can be embraced Puig, Gonzalo Villalta. "Parliamentary versus Presidential Government." AQ: Australian Quarterly 74, no. 5 (2002): THE WORLD JOURNAL ON JURISTIC POLITY ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.