The Constitution of India establishes a parliamentary form of government, both at the national level and in the states. This system is defined primarily in Articles 74 and 75 for the central government and Articles 163 and 164 for state governments. In a parliamentary system, the executive branch of government (which includes the Prime Minister and the Cabinet) is directly accountable to the legislature (Parliament) for its actions and decisions. This means that the government must maintain the confidence of the Parliament to stay in power.
In contrast, a presidential system of government, such as that found in the United States, operates differently. Here, the executive branch operates independently of the legislature and does not have to answer directly to it for its policies or actions. The President, who serves a fixed term, is not dependent on the confidence of the legislature to remain in office.
The parliamentary system is sometimes referred to as a cabinet government, a responsible government, or the Westminster model, named after the location of the British Parliament where this system was first developed. Other countries that use parliamentary systems include Japan, Canada, and Australia.
According to political theorist Ivor Jennings, the parliamentary system is referred to as the 'cabinet system' because the cabinet members are the central decision-makers and hold the true power within this form of government. This system is marked by its accountability – the cabinet should be prepared to answer for its decisions to the Parliament. If Parliament loses confidence in the cabinet, it can lead to the resignation of the government.
Historically, the British Prime Minister was known as the 'primus inter pares', which translates to 'first among equals,' indicating that the Prime Minister was one of several key figures in the cabinet. However, in recent years, the role of the Prime Minister has become more dominant. Political commentators, such as Crossman and Mackintosh, have noted this trend, labeling the British system as a 'prime ministerial government'. This characterization also applies to India, highlighting the growing influence of the Indian Prime Minister within the parliamentary framework.
Furthermore, the Indian Constitution and its articles discuss not just the structure but also the functions of this government. Article 75 states that the Prime Minister is appointed by the President and must be a member of the Lok Sabha (House of the People) or the Rajya Sabha (Council of States). Article 74 further provides that the President must act according to the advice of the Council of Ministers, headed by the Prime Minister.
In the states, Articles 163 and 164 establish similar frameworks, outlining how governors appoint chief ministers and how councils of ministers function. Each state’s government mirrors the parliamentary setup of the national government, thereby reinforcing the principles of accountability and responsiveness in governance across India.
In summary, the parliamentary system as enshrined in the Constitution of India is marked by the interplay between the executive and legislative branches, facilitating a framework wherein the government must remain accountable to the people's representatives in Parliament. This structure not only exists at the central level but is also echoed in the governance of states across the country.
Features of Parliamentary Government in India
Parliamentary government is an important aspect of India's political system. It has some key features that define how the government operates. Let's explore these features in simple terms.
Nominal and Real Executives
In India, we have what is known as a nominal executive and a real executive. The President of India serves as the nominal executive, which means he or she holds a ceremonial position. The real power lies with the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers, who make the important decisions and run the government. The President's role is mainly symbolic, and they do not engage in day-to-day management of the country.
The Council of Ministers, led by the Prime Minister, consists of elected members from the parliament. These ministers are responsible for different departments, such as finance, education, and health. They do not only advise the President, but they are also accountable to the parliament, particularly the Lok Sabha (the lower house), for their actions and policies.
Advisory Nature of Secretaries
Now, it's important to mention that there are non-elected departmental secretaries who assist the ministers. Known as the "Kitchen Cabinet," they provide guidance and support to the ministers. However, these secretaries are appointed by the President and serve at his or her pleasure. They are not elected and do not hold any legislative power. While they advise the government, they do not bear direct responsibility to the parliament like elected ministers do.
Separation of Powers
In the parliamentary system of India, there is a distinction between the powers of different branches of government. However, unlike the American system where the roles of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches are entirely separate, in India, these functions are connected.
In the U.S. presidential system, the doctrine of separation of powers clearly divides responsibilities among the three arms of government: the legislature makes laws, the executive implements them, and the judiciary interprets them. In India, while these functions exist, the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers are chosen from members of the parliament, thus integrating the executive with the legislature.
Relevant Constitutional Articles
Many of these features are laid out in the Constitution of India. The role of the President is explained in Article 52, which states that there shall be a President of India. Article 74 discusses the advice given by the Council of Ministers to the President. Moreover, Article 75 outlines how the Prime Minister is appointed and the composition of the Council of Ministers.
The relationship between the ministers and the parliament is governed by Article 75(3), which makes it clear that the ministers hold office during the pleasure of the President, but they are collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha.
Overall, the parliamentary system of government in India is designed to ensure that elected representatives have the power to make and implement decisions, while the President acts in a ceremonial capacity. This framework promotes accountability and is intended to reflect the will of the people through their elected representatives.
Advantages of the Parliamentary System in India
The parliamentary system of government has several important benefits that make it effective and adaptable. Here are the key merits explained in simpler language:
1. Cooperation Between Legislative and Executive Branches
One of the biggest advantages of the parliamentary system is that it encourages collaboration between the legislative branch (the Parliament, which makes laws) and the executive branch (the government that runs the country). In this system, the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers are a part of the Parliament, which means they work closely together. Because the executive is accountable to the legislature, there is less chance for disagreements and conflicts between them. This close relationship helps ensure that laws and policies are made and implemented smoothly.
2. Accountability of Government Officials
In a parliamentary system, ministers and government officials are responsible for their actions and decisions to the Parliament. This means that they must answer for what they do, whether it is something positive or negative. The Parliament has various tools to hold them accountable, such as the question hour, where members can ask questions directly to the ministers. Other procedures, like motions for discussions and votes of no confidence, allow Parliament to monitor the executive's performance effectively. This accountability is a fundamental part of Articles 75 and 83 of the Indian Constitution, which outline the responsibilities of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers.
3. Prevention of Dictatorship
Another significant advantage of the parliamentary system is that power is not concentrated in the hands of one person. Instead, executive power is held by a group of individuals, known as the Council of Ministers. This system prevents any single person from becoming too powerful or dictatorial, as multiple ministers share the responsibility of governing. Furthermore, if the government loses the support of the majority in Parliament, they can be removed through a vote of no confidence, as stipulated under Article 75 of the Indian Constitution. This mechanism helps protect democracy and ensure that the government remains responsive to the needs of the people.
4. Availability of Alternative Government
In situations where the ruling party no longer has a majority in the Parliament, the Head of State (usually the President) can invite the opposition party to form a new government without the need for new elections. This means that there are alternatives available, and the country can quickly move forward with a new government. Dr. D. C. Jhoti, a noted constitutional expert, even pointed out that the leader of the opposition in parliamentary systems serves effectively as an alternative Prime Minister due to this arrangement. This is crucial for political stability and quick transitions when necessary.
5. Representation of All Sections of Society
The parliamentary system allows for a broad representation of different parts of society within the government. Since ministers are often elected representatives from various regions and communities, this system helps ensure that various voices and interests are included in the decision-making process. The Prime Minister has the discretion to choose ministers from different backgrounds and regions, thus promoting overall representation. This diversity helps make governance more inclusive and responsive to the needs of the citizens.
Conclusion
The parliamentary system plays a vital role in Indian governance, bringing together cooperation, accountability, representation, and safeguards against the concentration of power. Understanding these merits can help citizens appreciate how their government operates and the protections in place to support a functioning democracy. The structure outlined by the Indian Constitution not only supports these principles but also ensures that the government remains connected to the people it serves.
Demerits of the Parliamentary System in India
The parliamentary system of governance in India has some advantages, but it also comes with several drawbacks that affect its effectiveness. Understanding these challenges can help us grasp the complexities of how our government operates. Let's look at these issues in detail.
One significant drawback of the parliamentary system is its potential for unstable government. In this system, a government may not always last its full term. The ministers—who are members of the government—depend on the support of the majority of lawmakers (Members of Parliament) to stay in power. If a no-confidence motion is passed, or if there are defections (when members of a party change allegiance), or if coalitions become unstable, the government can collapse. There have been numerous instances in India, such as the governments led by Morarji Desai, Charan Singh, V.P. Singh, Chandra Shekhar, H.D. Deve Gowda, and I.K. Gujral, where such instability was evident.
Another issue is the lack of continuity in government policies. Since the tenure of a government can be uncertain, each new ruling party often makes changes to the policies put in place by its predecessors. This instability makes it hard for long-term plans to be followed through. For instance, when there is a change in the Prime Minister—who is effectively in charge of the executive branch—there is frequently a corresponding shift in the direction of government policies. While the President, as head of the state, plays a ceremonial role, the Prime Minister, appointed by the President, is the head of the actual government. According to Article 74 of the Indian Constitution, a council of ministers led by the Prime Minister is responsible for advising the President.
The parliamentary system also tends to promote majority party rule. The political party that wins the most seats in the Lok Sabha (the lower house of Parliament) forms the government, and its leader becomes the Prime Minister. If no party secures a majority, the President may ask a coalition of parties to form the government. This situation, while practical, can lead to the marginalization of smaller parties and hinder diverse representation in the government.
Collective responsibility is another key feature of this system, which can be seen as both a strength and a weakness. As outlined in Article 75, the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha. This means that if the Lok Sabha passes a vote of no-confidence against the council, the entire government must resign. While this system promotes accountability, it can also lead to a lack of individual responsibility among ministers.
Political homogeneity is often observed within the cabinet, as most ministers belong to the same political party and share common beliefs. In coalition governments, consensus is necessary, which sometimes stifles differing viewpoints. This can limit robust debate and innovative policy-making, as differing ideologies may clash.
Additionally, the feature of double membership complicates governance. Ministers must be members of both the executive branch (the government) and the legislature (Parliament). According to the Constitution, if a minister does not win a seat in Parliament within six months, they automatically lose their position. This dual role can cause conflicts of interest and challenges in governing effectively.
The role of the Prime Minister is critical in this system. The Prime Minister serves as the chief leader of the council of ministers, leader in Parliament, and the leader of their political party. Because of these roles, the Prime Minister wields significant influence over government operations and policy implementation.
Another concerning aspect is the power of dissolution held by the Prime Minister. They can advise the President to dissolve the Lok Sabha before its term ends, paving the way for fresh elections. This power can lead to premature elections and potential political instability, as the executive can dissolve the legislature at will.
Lastly, there is an inherent secrecy in the workings of the government. Ministers function on principles of confidentiality, meaning they cannot openly share details about their decisions and processes. They take an oath of secrecy before taking on their roles, which is administered by the President. While this secrecy can safeguard sensitive information, it can also limit transparency and accountability to the public.
In summary, while the parliamentary system in India is designed to reflect the will of the people, it faces several significant challenges that can undermine its effectiveness. From instability and policy inconsistency to issues of accountability and transparency, these demerits are important to consider for any adjustments or reforms to enhance the system's performance. Understanding these points can provide insights into the workings of Indian politics and governance.
Features of Presidential and Parliamentary Governments
In India, we follow a parliamentary form of government, which is quite different from the presidential government system seen in the United States. To understand this difference better, let's look at the main features of the presidential government as practiced in the U.S., along with insights into India's structure.
Leadership Structure
In the American system, the President plays a dual role. He or she is both the head of state and the head of government. As the head of state, the President performs ceremonial duties, such as representing the nation in meetings and events. However, as the head of government, the President leads the executive branch, making important decisions and implementing laws.
The President of the United States is elected through an electoral college, which is a group of representatives from each state, for a term of four years. This means that every four years, the citizens vote for their President, and this structure helps ensure that the President remains accountable to the people. Importantly, a President cannot be easily removed from office. The Congress can only remove the President through a process called impeachment, which is reserved for serious violations of the Constitution.
Role of the Cabinet
Just like in India, the President in the U.S. has a cabinet that assists in governance. This group consists of heads of different departments, such as education, defense, and health. They help the President in making administrative decisions and shaping policies. A noteworthy example of changing policies based on leadership is when Morarji Desai led the Janata Government in India in 1977, reversing many decisions made by the previous Congress government. A similar situation occurred when the Congress party returned to power in 1980, illustrating how political shifts can lead to significant changes in government policy.
Dictatorship of the Cabinet
In a parliamentary system like India’s, when a ruling party holds a strong majority, the cabinet can become overpowering. Critics argue that this majority can lead to "dictatorship of the cabinet," where the cabinet leaders exercise excessive control, limiting checks and balances. This concern has been raised by political thinkers like H.J. Laski and Ramsay Muir, who pointed out that a parliamentary system can risk tyranny. Instances of this have been seen during the tenures of former Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, indicating that a strong majority can lead to less accountability.
Separation of Powers
Another key difference lies in the concept of separation of powers. In a presidential system, the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government are distinct and separate. However, in India's parliamentary system, the executive (Prime Minister and cabinet) is born from the legislature (Parliament), meaning the two branches are closely linked. The cabinet acts as a bridge that connects both branches, thereby challenging the strict theory of separation of powers. The political thinker Walter Bagehot described the cabinet as a "hyphen" that joins the legislature and executive, indicating that there is a mix of powers rather than clear separation.
Government by Amateurs
Lastly, in a parliamentary system, the ministers may not always be experts in their fields. The Prime Minister has limited choices for selecting ministers, as they must be members of the Parliament. This often restricts the pool of qualified individuals who can bring expertise and efficient administrative skills to the government. Additionally, ministers may spend much of their time on parliamentary duties, meetings, and party activities rather than on effectively governing their respective departments.
Conclusion
Understanding the differences between the presidential and parliamentary systems sheds light on how governments operate in various political environments. While the U.S. system emphasizes strong leadership with clear separation of powers, India's parliamentary approach reflects a closer relationship between the legislative and executive branches, influenced by party politics and majority rule. Each system comes with its own advantages and disadvantages, significantly shaping the way policies are created and implemented.
Reasons for Adopting the Parliamentary System in India
During the formation of the Indian Constitution, there was a discussion about whether to adopt the presidential system of government, similar to that of the United States. However, the leaders who drafted the Constitution decided in favor of the British parliamentary system for several important reasons.
First, many of the Constitution makers had experience with the parliamentary system because it was already in use in India during British colonial rule. K.M. Munshi, a prominent member of the Constituent Assembly, noted that over the past few decades, there had been some level of responsibility in governance within the country. He argued that returning to a completely new system, like the American one, would not make sense given the experience they already had with the parliamentary method. This familiarity made it easier for the leaders to understand and implement the parliamentary system effectively.
Second, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, a key figure in drafting the Constitution, highlighted the need for a responsible government. He explained that a democratic government needs two main qualities: stability and responsibility. He observed that while the American system provides more stability, it tends to lack in accountability. On the other side, the British system emphasizes responsibility but sometimes at the cost of stability. The framers of the Constitution chose the parliamentary system because they valued responsibility more, believing it was crucial for the growth of India's democracy.
Another reason for adopting this system was the desire to minimize conflicts between the legislative and executive branches of government. In a presidential system, like that of the U.S., there can often be tensions or clashes between these two branches. The Constitution makers in India felt that as a newly independent nation, India could not afford the instability that might arise from such conflicts. They aimed for a government structure that would support the diverse needs and development of the country without the fear of ongoing disputes between government branches.
The diverse nature of Indian society also played a significant role in this decision. India's population is made up of numerous cultures, religions, and languages, making it one of the most complex societies globally. The parliamentary system allows for broader representation, giving voice to different segments of society, which helps promote unity and a sense of national identity among the people. This inclusiveness is vital for nurturing a strong and cohesive nation.
Since the 1970s, there has been ongoing discussion about whether to maintain the parliamentary system or switch to a presidential one. The issue was critically examined by the Swaran Singh Committee, which was established by the Congress government in 1975. The committee ultimately concluded that the parliamentary system was functioning well in India, and there was no compelling reason to change it to a presidential system.
In summary, the adoption of the parliamentary system in India was based on familiarity, a strong preference for responsibility, the aim to avoid conflicts between government branches, and the need to accommodate India's diverse society. Articles in the Indian Constitution, particularly Articles 74 and 75, outline the structure and function of the executive branch, highlighting the importance of this system in ensuring a stable and responsible government.
Distinction Between Indian and British Parliamentary Models
The parliamentary system in India takes its roots from the British model but reflects several important differences that shape its unique framework. Understanding these distinctions helps to appreciate how governance operates in India compared to Britain.
One of the most significant contrasts lies in the nature of the head of state. In India, the President serves as the head of state and is elected by the people through an electoral college. This is in sharp contrast to the British system where the Monarch, either a King or a Queen, holds a hereditary position, passed down through generations. This difference is crucial because it underlines the republican system of governance in India, which is established under Article 52 of the Indian Constitution, whereas Britain is a constitutional monarchy.
Another important difference is in the concept of parliamentary sovereignty. In the British system, Parliament is considered sovereign, meaning it has the ultimate authority, and no laws or decisions can challenge its power. Conversely, in India, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, as stated in Article 13, ensuring that Parliament operates within the limitations set by the Constitution. This framework includes a federal structure, the ability to review laws through judicial review as outlined in Article 32, and the safeguarding of fundamental rights as enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.
Furthermore, the role of the Prime Minister also shows notable differences. In Britain, the Prime Minister is mandated to be a member of the House of Commons (the lower house of Parliament). However, in India, the Prime Minister can be chosen from either house of Parliament, which includes the Lok Sabha (House of the People) or the Rajya Sabha (Council of States). This flexibility allows India to appoint a Prime Minister who may bring different experiences and perspectives from either house.
Regarding the appointment of ministers, the British system typically requires ministers to be members of Parliament. However, Indian law allows for the appointment of a person who is not a member of Parliament to serve as a minister, provided that this individual is elected as a member within six months of their appointment. This flexibility is set out in Article 75 of the Indian Constitution and allows for greater inclusivity in governance.
It is also important to note the difference in legal accountability for ministers. In Britain, there is a system of 'collective responsibility,' which holds ministers legally accountable for their actions and decisions. However, India does not have a corresponding legal accountability system, although the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers are accountable to Parliament, as governed by Article 75(3).
Lastly, the concept of a 'shadow cabinet' is unique to the British system, where the opposition party forms its own cabinet to scrutinize and prepare to replace the current government. This serves to provide an alternative and promotes a healthy political environment. India lacks such a formal institution, although the opposition does play a critical role in legislative debate and governance.
In summary, while India’s parliamentary system is based on the British model, it has distinctly adapted to its republican context, where constitutional supremacy, the elected head of state, flexible appointments of ministers, and the absence of a shadow cabinet reflect the country’s unique political landscape. Understanding these differences helps highlight the Indian approach to governance and the principles outlined in its Constitution.