Parliamentary System of Government in India including features, advantages, disadvantages, and comparison with Presidential system. UPSC Polity GS2 topic.

Parliamentary System of Government

• Constitutional Provisions

  • The Constitution of India establishes a parliamentary form of governance at both the central and state levels.
  • Articles 74 and 75 define this system at the Centre, while Articles 163 and 164 cover it in the states.

• Parliamentary vs Presidential Systems

  • Modern democracies are broadly classified into two models based on the relationship between the executive and the legislature:
    • (i) Parliamentary system — the executive is accountable to the legislature for policies and actions.
    • (ii) Presidential system — the executive is independent of the legislature in tenure and decision-making.
  • The parliamentary model is also called cabinet government, responsible government, or the Westminster model — prevalent in Britain, Japan, Canada, India, etc.
  • The presidential model is referred to as non-responsible government, non-parliamentary system, or fixed executive system — seen in USA, Brazil, Russia, Sri Lanka, etc.

• Origins and Concepts

  • Ivor Jennings described the parliamentary framework as a ‘cabinet system’, highlighting that the cabinet is the core of political power.
  • The term ‘responsible government’ reflects the cabinet’s accountability to Parliament, retaining office only while enjoying its confidence.
  • The name ‘Westminster model’ originates from Westminster in London, the seat of the British Parliament.
  • Earlier British thinkers viewed the Prime Minister as primus inter pares (first among equals), but modern analysis — by scholars like Crossman and Mackintosh — sees a prime ministerial government due to the enhanced role of the PM. This description applies to India as well.

• Key Features of Parliamentary Government in India

  • (i) Nominal and Real Executives — The President acts as the nominal (de jure) head of state, while the Prime Minister functions as the real (de facto) head of government. Under Article 74, a Council of Ministers led by the PM advises the President, and this advice is binding.
  • (ii) Majority Party Rule — The political party with majority in the Lok Sabha forms the government. Its leader is appointed Prime Minister, and ministers are appointed by the President on the PM’s advice. In a hung house, a coalition may be invited to govern.
  • (iii) Collective Responsibility — Enshrined in Article 75, ministers are collectively answerable to Parliament, particularly the Lok Sabha. The ministry can be removed via a no-confidence motion.
  • (iv) Political Homogeneity — Ministers usually belong to the same party and share ideology; in coalitions, decisions are made through consensus.
  • (v) Double Membership — Ministers are part of both the executive and legislature. Anyone not a member of Parliament for six months must step down as minister.
  • (vi) Leadership of the Prime Minister — The PM is leader of the Council of Ministers, Parliament, and the ruling party, exercising central influence over governance.
  • (vii) Dissolution of the Lower House — On the PM’s advice, the President can dissolve the Lok Sabha before term completion and call fresh elections.
  • (viii) Secrecy — Ministers swear an oath of secrecy (administered by the President) and must not reveal details of government proceedings, policies, or decisions.

Presidential and Parliamentary Systems

• Features of the Presidential Government

  • (i) In the American model, the President serves as both the ceremonial Head of State and the functional Head of Government, overseeing the executive branch.
  • (ii) The President is chosen by an electoral college for a fixed four-year term and can only be removed through impeachment for serious constitutional violations.
  • (iii) The President is assisted by a Cabinet or a smaller advisory group nicknamed the ‘Kitchen Cabinet’. These are non-elected departmental secretaries appointed, dismissed, and answerable solely to him.
  • (iv) Neither the President nor his secretaries hold seats in Congress, nor are they answerable to it for their decisions.
  • (v) The President has no authority to dissolve the House of Representatives.
  • (vi) The system is grounded in the doctrine of separation of powers, with legislative, executive, and judicial authority distributed among three distinct, independent branches.

• Merits of the Parliamentary System

  • (i) Legislature–Executive Harmony — The integration of the executive within the legislature fosters cooperation and reduces conflict between the two arms.
  • (ii) Responsible Government — Ministers remain collectively answerable to Parliament for all actions. Parliamentary tools like question hour, discussions, and no-confidence motions ensure accountability.
  • (iii) Prevention of Autocracy — Executive authority rests with a Council of Ministers rather than a single leader, limiting dictatorial tendencies. The possibility of removal through a no-confidence vote acts as a further check.
  • (iv) Alternative Government Mechanism — If the ruling party loses majority, the Head of State can invite another party to form the government without fresh elections. As Dr. Jennings remarked, “the leader of the opposition is the alternative prime minister.”
  • (v) Broad Representation — The ministry, comprising elected representatives, allows regional and community diversity to be reflected in governance.

• Demerits of the Parliamentary System

  • (i) Government Instability — The ministry’s survival hinges on legislative confidence. Instances like the short tenures of governments led by Morarji Desai, Charan Singh, V. P. Singh, Chandra Shekhar, H. D. Deve Gowda, and I. K. Gujral illustrate this fragility.
  • (ii) Policy Discontinuity — Uncertain tenures discourage long-term policymaking. The Janata Government (1977) reversed many Congress policies, only for Congress to reverse them again in 1980.
  • (iii) Cabinet Dictatorship — A ruling party with a large majority may dominate Parliament unchecked, as observed during Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi’s tenures. Thinkers like H. J. Laski and Ramsay Muir have criticised this tendency.
  • (iv) Absence of Strict Separation of Powers — The fusion of legislature and executive contradicts the separation principle. Bagehot called the cabinet a “hyphen” joining the two branches.
  • (v) Rule by Amateurs — Ministers are often political appointees without subject expertise. The PM’s choice is confined to MPs, and much of their time is spent on legislative and party duties rather than administration.

• Overall Comparison

  • This analysis highlights how the presidential system prioritises separation of powers and fixed tenure, while the parliamentary system emphasises legislative–executive cooperation and political accountability — each with distinct strengths and weaknesses.

Reasons for Adopting the Parliamentary System

• (i) Familiarity with the System

  • The Constitution-makers were well-acquainted with the parliamentary model, as it had been in practice in India during British rule.
  • K. M. Munshi emphasized that for three to four decades, India had been governed under a system involving parliamentary responsibility, which had shaped the nation’s constitutional traditions.
  • Given this background, it was felt unnecessary to experiment with an entirely novel system.

• (ii) Preference to More Responsibility

  • Dr. B. R. Ambedkar observed that a democratic executive must balance stability and responsibility.
  • The American model ensures greater stability but compromises on responsibility, while the British model offers higher responsibility with less stability.
  • The Draft Constitution opted for the parliamentary executive prioritizing responsibility over stability.

• (iii) Avoidance of Legislative–Executive Conflicts

  • The framers aimed to prevent constant clashes between the legislature and the executive—common in the US presidential system.
  • They believed that a young democracy like India could not risk a persistent power struggle between these two organs.
  • The chosen system was meant to foster smooth cooperation for nation-building.

• (iv) Nature of Indian Society

  • India is highly diverse and pluralistic, comprising multiple regions, cultures, and communities.
  • The parliamentary model allows wider representation of various sections and interests in governance.
  • This inclusivity helps in strengthening national unity and promoting a shared sense of belonging.

• (v) Swaran Singh Committee’s Opinion

  • In 1975, the Swaran Singh Committee, appointed by the Congress government, evaluated whether the system should be replaced by the presidential form.
  • The committee concluded that the parliamentary model was functioning effectively and recommended no change.

Distinction Between Indian and British Parliamentary Models

• (i) Republic vs. Monarchy

  • India functions as a republic with an elected President as the Head of State.
  • In Britain, the Head of State is the King or Queen who holds the position hereditarily.

• (ii) Sovereignty of Parliament

  • The British Parliament enjoys supreme legislative authority.
  • In India, Parliament’s powers are restricted by the written Constitution, federal structure, judicial review, and fundamental rights.

• (iii) Prime Minister’s Membership Requirement

  • In Britain, the Prime Minister must be a member of the House of Commons.
  • In India, the Prime Minister can be from either Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha.

• (iv) Appointment of Ministers

  • In Britain, ministers are chosen exclusively from Parliament members.
  • In India, a non-member can be appointed as a minister but must secure a seat in Parliament within six months.

• (v) Legal Responsibility

  • The British system enforces legal responsibility on ministers, requiring them to countersign the official acts of the Head of State.
  • In India, there is no such legal countersigning requirement.

• (vi) Shadow Cabinet

  • Britain has a unique Shadow Cabinet, formed by the opposition to mirror the ruling cabinet and prepare for governance.
  • India has no equivalent institution.