Difference between the Parliamentary system and the Presidential system:

• The major difference between these two systems is that in a Presidential system, the President is directly voted upon by the people. He is answerable to the voters rather than the legislature. 
• While in a parliamentary system, the legislature holds supreme power. The prime minister is chosen by members of the legislature and in practice is the leader of the majority party in the legislature. The prime minister along with his cabinet members must also belong to the legislature, where they are subject to the questioning by the legislature. 
• If the prime minister loses the support of the majority in the legislature, he is forced to resign immediately and elections are called. 
• Countries such as India, UK, Germany, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, and Italy have a parliamentary form of government while Afghanistan, USA, Venezuela, Ghana, Iran, and Indonesia have a presidential form of government.

 

Advantages of Presidential form of government:

• The presidential form of government ensures stability of the government. The executive can carry on with its policy till the end of its full term. It helps in bringing stability to administration. 
• In this system, decisions can be taken speedily and implemented effectively. The executive in a parliamentary system is ridden with indecision due to political pressures. Therefore, it is difficult to take decisions promptly. However, the presidential executive is free from such inhibitions. He makes his own decisions and gets them implemented through his own ministers.
• In the presidential system, the executive is free from the evils of party influence in his daily administration as compared with parliamentary form of government. His ministers are not political in nature nor he is leading a political party in the legislature. This allows him required freedom to carry on his administration without any obstacles.
• But under a Parliamentary system everything needs to be done under political consideration due to never ending party pressure on the prime minister.

 

Disadvantages of presidential form of government:

•  In a presidential system, the executive is often chosen independently from the legislature. If the executive and legislature in such a system include members from different political parties, then stalemate or deadlock is very much likely to occur where passing of key legislative decisions are concerned. 
• The president in the presidential form of government being not responsible or answerable to anybody except the voters can be a precarious proposition in a democratic form of government. When the president becomes autocratic due to lack of any immediate check the administration becomes irresponsible which in turn affects the freedom of the people.
• The separation of powers between executive and legislature in the presidential form of government sometimes creates conflicts and deadlocks. The executive making policies not in consultation with the legislature or the legislature bringing legislation without the initiative of the executive more often than not create conflicts between them.

 

Political Structure of India:

•  Constitution of India provides for a Parliamentary form of government. While doing so it follows the British model of government. In fact, the type of government that functioned in India before 1947 was very much similar to the British model of parliamentary government.
• Therefore, the members of the Constituent Assembly decided to adopt this form of government for independent India. The Constitution of India provides for the constitution of parliamentary government both at the centre and the states.

 

Conclusion: 

• India as a nation is deeply divided into several groups with conflicting interests. In this situation switching to a presidential form of government can be counter-productive. True, parliamentary form of government makes the decision-making process a lengthy one in India but it manages to keep the political integrity intact. 
• At least, it doesn’t curtail the freedom of people. In the presidential form of government, the president can start behaving like an autocrat by imposing his decisions on the masses. Moreover, the nation is in no mood for any new experiment which could pose any danger to its unity. 
• India is a very form of government much used to the parliamentary ernment since British Raj. Switching to a presidential form of government will add only confusion. At least all the varied groups are getting representation in a parliamentary form of government. Therefore, India should continue with the parliamentary form of government.