Constitution and Political Science
Constitution and Political Science
Constitution and Political Science
Introduction
Presidential and Parliamentary forms of Govt are two different systems of Government, which are available in all countries of the world. These two systems are for good governance. System of Government in every country is functioning with either Presidential or Parliamentary form of Govt. Historically these two systems of Government are available in United States of America and United Kingdom. The countries, remained under colonial system, had adopted the system left by their masters except of some, for example USA adopted Presidential form of Government after getting Independence from UK. On the other hand New Zealand is following the system of Westminster model, which also remained colony of UK. Similarly, Nigeria also adopted the Presidential form of Government after getting independence from France. Like this, Pakistan and India had also adopted Parliamentary form of Government after getting independence from United Kingdom, which was there at that time.
War and expanded over since and is now a dominant theme in British politics. Majesty of King or Queen is now ceremonial. All the functions of Government are being controlled by the UK Parliament. This is too much independent Parliament in the world; therefore, there is a saying that Parliament of Britain can do everything except to change the sex of a person In this system, members are chosen / elected directly by the people through plebiscite. These members represent their constituency at one floor. This system is also very popular in all the countries of the world. In every country, some are in favour of Presidential form of Government and some are in favour of Parliament form of Government.
men of vision and integrate having professional knowledge and practical experience. 2. In the Parliamentary system for the reasons listed above, the ministers are not able to provide effective leadership. As they do not have the requisite expertise. They have to depend largely on the civil servants, their secretaries and under-secretaries. They become mere puppets in the hands of the officers, and thus democracy degenerates into bureaucracy. Some illiterate members/ministers are elected on the basis of casteism having no educational background; therefore, they do not have knowledge of the changes of the world. They depend on bureaucracy. The Presidential system suffers from no such disadvantages. The ministers have the necessary expertise, and so are not dominated by the civil servants. They know their business, and can see to it that their policies and programs are faithfully carried out. President can change his minister at anytime. He is not answerable to anybody. 3. As the ministers are chosen from party men in the Parliamentary form, the party is deprived of capable persons needed to keep the organization united, homogenous, strong and viable. As a result of this drain of talent from the party to government, the party organization grows weak, and indiscipline and infighting, are the result. The Presidential system is largely free from these drawbacks, as well as from rivalry and friction between the party bosses and the ministerial wing. The party and the government thus work in harmony. 4. The politics of defection is the worst fault of the Parliamentary form. Defections become the order of the day. This result in corruption, nepotism, casteism, regionalism, and often short lived coalition government are formed. Defection leads to multiplication of political parties, political instability comes in the way of constructive work. This generates the pressure groups, which always blackmail the ruling party as well as opposition party. Similarly, these groups also help the bureaucracy in its effort to derail the system. This evil is unheard of in the other system.
Page | 3
In Presidential system of Government, one man almost all men because he possess the mandate to do which he thinks fit and go ahead. No one can assert pressure on him. 5. The legislators and M.P's are not free to vote according to their conscience in the Parliamentary system. They must obey the party-whip or face expulsion.
5. Interest of the people in the affairs of the country. Consequently, development of public opinion. 6. Manifesto of the parties for the general public to decide mandate. 7. Criticism by the opposition. 8. Equal representation of all constituencies either urban or rural. 9. Legislation according to the will of the people by the members representing them in the parliament.
Page | 5
3. Newly elected members sometimes neglected even competent in their fields. 4. Misuse of authority by the members of Parliamentary because of majority. 5. Members of Parliament cannot go against the partys policy. Even they cannot vote according to their conscience. 6. Nomination of illiterate members as ministers causing strongest bureaucracy. 7. Influence of small factions on the political parties.
Conclusion of Research
Every nation should adopt that system which is most suitable to the citizen of that country instead following the system left by their master, because this tendency do not develop the system of government. China is the example, who adopted neither Presidential and Parliament system of Government nor
Page | 6
communism. There is the system having combination of Presidential and Parliamentary as well as communist systems of Government. For example, there is Peoples Procuratorate, which is an independent elected body for five years having power to lodge protest with the Supreme Peoples Court against any decision/order passed by Supreme Court. As per my research there is no countries, which have such system of check and balance. USA is another example, who adopted different system of Government i.e Presidential form of Government instead parliamentary system of Government left by United Kingdom. Intellectuals of America showing their domination by change in the spells of English language. They also introduced the doctrine of separation of power. This doctrine was not following in UK in the recent past. Judicial authorities were being exercised by the House of Lords, who were also members of the Legislature. Resultantly, sometimes they were exercising their influence in any one institute. This problem has now been realized by Britain and established a new Supreme Court w.e.f. 1st October 2009 by promulgating the Constitutional Reforms Act 2005. All Judicial powers of House of Lords have been withdrawn and vested to the new Supreme Court. However, people love either Presidential or Parliamentary systems of Government. But according to my notion Parliament system of Government is the best than Presidential system of Government because this system contains option to select/chose the best one member who represents every Constituency of country either Urban or Rural. Legislation is being made keeping in view of the reservations of all constituency. Prime Minister leads the house with all members and tries to run the affairs of Government with consensus of majority. There is no absolute power. All matters either domestic or international are decided with consensus of political parties. All members keep close contact with the citizens of their constituencies, which result fruitful public opinion.
Page | 7
Bibliography
professional.jodyb.net/presparl.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_system http://www.preservearticles.com/201107139053/difference-betweenpresidential-and-parliamentary-forms-of-government.html http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-aparliamentary-and-presidential-system-of-government.htm http://www.publishyourarticles.org/eng/articles/difference-betweenpresidential-and-parliamentary-form-of-govt.html http://www.indiabix.com/group-discussion/presidential-v-sparliamentary-form-of-government-in-india/ http://www.indiabix.com/group-discussion/presidential-v-sparliamentary-form-of-government-in-india/ http://www.essortment.com/parliamentary-versus-presidentialgovernments-60835.html
Page | 8