The Parliamentary System is a form of government where the executive is drawn from the legislature and is accountable to it. India adopted this system from Britain, also known as the Westminster Model.
It is characterized by:
- Collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers to the Lok Sabha.
- A dual executive: the Nominal Head (President/Governor) and the Real Head (Prime Minister/Chief Minister).
- Fusion of powers between the legislature and the executive.
| The Constitution of India establishes a parliamentary form of government at both the Centre (Articles 74 and 75) and in the States (Articles 163 and 164) |
KEY FEATURES
Collective Responsibility:
- The essence of the Cabinet system lies in collective responsibility to the legislature. The Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha (Article 75), thereby ensuring accountability.
Dual Executive:
- President/Governor: Nominal or de jure executive (constitutional head).
- Prime Minister/Chief Minister: Real or de facto executive (functional head).
Westminster Model:
- Also known as Cabinet Government or Responsible Government.
- Inspired by the British model; also practiced in Canada, Japan, Australia, etc.
Majority Rule:
- The political party (or coalition) with a majority in the Lok Sabha forms the government.
Political Homogeneity:
- The Council of Ministers usually belongs to the same political party and shares a common ideology, ensuring coordination.
Double Membership:
- Ministers are members of both the legislature and the executive, reflecting the fusion of powers (unlike the Presidential system, which is based on separation of powers).
Leadership Role of Prime Minister:
- The Prime Minister is the head of the government and leads the Council of Ministers in both policy-making and administration.
Secrecy of Procedure:
- Ministers operate under the principle of confidentiality regarding cabinet proceedings.
Dissolution of Lower House:
- The Lok Sabha can be dissolved by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister, reinforcing executive control.
No Shadow Cabinet in India:
- Unlike the British system, India does not have a ‘Shadow Cabinet’—a body formed by the opposition to monitor and challenge the ruling cabinet.
MERITS AND DEMERITS OF THE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
| Merits of the Parliamentary System | Demerits of the Parliamentary System |
| Coherence Between Executive and Legislature : Ensures close coordination, minimizing friction between the two organs. | Government Instability : Survival of the executive hinges on the fluctuating support of the legislature, making it fragile. |
| Accountable Governance : The executive remains answerable to the legislature, which exercises oversight through tools like Question Hour, adjournment motions, and no-confidence votes. | Policy Discontinuity : Frequent changes in government may lead to abrupt reversals of long-term policy decisions. |
| Checks on Authoritarianism : Executive authority is distributed among a council of ministers, preventing concentration of power. | Cabinet Dominance : When the ruling party has a strong majority, the cabinet may act without sufficient checks. |
| Provision for Alternative Leadership : Loss of majority allows the Head of State to invite the opposition to form government, ensuring continuity without fresh elections.(Dr. Ivor Jennings called the leader of opposition the “alternative Prime Minister.”) | Weak Separation of Powers : The fusion of executive and legislative functions undermines the doctrine of separation of powers. |
| Inclusive Representation : Ministers are elected representatives, offering a platform for diverse regions and communities. | Amateur Governance : Ministers are drawn from the legislature, limiting the PM’s ability to bring in outside experts; much of their time goes into political and parliamentary duties. |
REASONS FOR ADOPTING THE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM IN INDIA
- Historical Familiarity
The framers of the Constitution were already acquainted with the parliamentary model, as it had been practiced in India during British rule.
- As K.M. Munshi remarked: “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?”
- As K.M. Munshi remarked: “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?”
- Preference for Responsible Government
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar emphasized that a democratic executive must satisfy two key conditions: stability and responsibility. The parliamentary model was seen as more accountable due to its collective responsibility to the legislature. - Avoiding Legislative–Executive Conflicts
The makers of the Constitution wanted to avoid the gridlocks that often emerge in a Presidential system, where the legislature and executive are separate and may clash.- In a newly independent and infant democracy like India, such clashes could prove detrimental.
- A system that ensured coordination and cooperation between the two organs was considered more suitable for national development.
- Representation in a Plural Society
India, being a deeply diverse and pluralistic society, required a system that could ensure broad representation of all communities, regions, and interests.- The parliamentary system, with its elections based on small constituencies, offers better regional and sectional representation in governance.
- The parliamentary system, with its elections based on small constituencies, offers better regional and sectional representation in governance.
| Swaran Singh Committee (1975):Appointed by the Congress government during the Emergency, this committee was tasked with examining whether India should continue with the Parliamentary system or adopt the Presidential system of government.After detailed deliberations, the committee strongly recommended the continuation of the Parliamentary system, observing that it had served the country well and there was no compelling reason to replace it. The committee reinforced the view that India’s pluralistic and diverse society was better represented and governed through a responsible parliamentary executive. |
PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM
The Presidential system of government is one in which the executive is constitutionally independent of the legislature in terms of both origin and operation. In this system, the President serves as both the Head of State and the Head of Government, concentrating executive power in a single authority. Unlike the parliamentary model, the executive does not derive its legitimacy from the legislature and is not accountable to it for its day-to-day functioning. This system ensures a clear separation of powers among the three organs of government—executive, legislature, and judiciary—and is most prominently practiced in countries like the United States.
Features of Presidential Government
- Single Executive
- The President functions as both the Head of State and the Head of Government, centralizing executive authority in a single office.
- The President functions as both the Head of State and the Head of Government, centralizing executive authority in a single office.
- Fixed Term of Office
- The President is elected for a fixed tenure by an electoral college.
- He cannot be removed by the legislature except through the rigorous process of impeachment for grave constitutional violations.
- Presidential Domination
- The President governs with the aid of a non-elected advisory body, often termed the “Kitchen Cabinet,” composed of departmental secretaries.
- These officials are:
- Personally appointed by the President
- Responsible only to him
- Removable at his discretion
- Non-Responsibility to Legislature
- The President and his secretaries are not accountable to the legislature for their decisions or actions.
- There is no principle of collective responsibility like in the parliamentary system.
- No Dissolution of the Legislature
- The President cannot dissolve the Lower House (House of Representatives), even in case of legislative deadlock.
- The President cannot dissolve the Lower House (House of Representatives), even in case of legislative deadlock.
- Strict Separation of Powers
- The system is based on the doctrine of separation of powers, where the three organs—legislature, executive, and judiciary—function independently of each other.
- The system is based on the doctrine of separation of powers, where the three organs—legislature, executive, and judiciary—function independently of each other.
- No Legislative Membership
- The President and his secretaries are not members of the legislature (Congress) and do not participate in its proceedings.
- The President and his secretaries are not members of the legislature (Congress) and do not participate in its proceedings.
- Lack of Political Homogeneity
- Cabinet members need not belong to the same political party.
- Thus, political homogeneity is not essential, and cross-party appointments are common.
SEMI-PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM
- A republican form of governance that blends features of both the Presidential and Parliamentary systems.
- It involves a dual executive:
- A President (directly elected by the people) who serves as the head of state with considerable powers.
- A Prime Minister, usually nominated by the President but responsible to the legislature, who serves as the head of government.
- There is often a division of policy domains—for instance, in France (a prominent semi-presidential democracy),
- The President leads foreign affairs,
- The Prime Minister handles domestic policy.
- The system may witness periods of “cohabitation”, where the President and Prime Minister belong to different political parties.
- Cohabitation can either encourage checks and balances or lead to gridlock and conflict, depending on political maturity and cooperation between the two offices.
- Cohabitation can either encourage checks and balances or lead to gridlock and conflict, depending on political maturity and cooperation between the two offices.