2007-09-10 05:28:43 · 9 answers · asked by prakash b 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
The presidential form of government is fine, but the present system (parliamentary) isn't bad either. In the parliamentary system(the current system of governance in India), legislature is paramount, that is so because the executive is a part of legislature. Whereas, separation of power is the core of the presidential system.(i.e. separation of power between the three organs of the state >< executive, legislature and the judiciary). Both the systems have their own merits and demerits. The problem is not with the form or system of government (Presidential or Parliamentary), but the people who form the government(read politicians) and the CITIZENS of a country, who are truly responsible to make any form of government successful one.
2007-09-10 06:12:42 · answer #1 · answered by Sanjay K 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, I don't think, In the past 60 years, we are running Parliament type of Govt, presidential form of Govt. will create complications in the system.
2007-09-10 05:39:07 · answer #2 · answered by Rana 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In Tamilnadu One year was ruled by Governor.Sri Alexander.Who is running the Govt.all ministrial staff take from Secretary,Under secretary,IAS,IPS,and other Govt officials.The so called political is do what,nothoing, like that presidential has to come once atleast in India.It should have come when Dr.Kalamji was the president,further there is no chance.
2007-09-13 06:00:05 · answer #3 · answered by panneerselvam s 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Parliamentary democracy (like the British system) also has many merits. Smaller political parties (minorities . . . etc) are often better represented in government. As an American, I'm just happy to see good things happening in India.
2016-05-21 03:41:03 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably it should be given a try. The shadow boxing will end.The real leaders shall come out to open and bear responsibility for their own actions.No person should get more than two terms.
2007-09-10 06:04:07 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
constitutions are made for centuries & not for a decade or so. The basis of constitution is to make it workable irrespective of the person operating it. The provisions in our constitution are really amazing & u have seen several small & big benefits of it in last decade or two. Then, why change it? Be a little analytical.
2007-09-12 20:04:13 · answer #6 · answered by JJ SHROFF 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Probably, "Yes". Something like that. But not exactly in its present form.
2007-09-10 05:43:55 · answer #7 · answered by Devarat 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree, it equally apply to Pakistan and Bangladesh.
2007-09-14 04:15:20 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
why, please explain
2007-09-11 16:23:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋