Whether the government in a country should be of presidential or parliamentary in form is an age old controversy, but it has taken a sharp turn when the Election Commission recommended the President’s rule for a month in the states before the Assembly polls.
The framers of the Constitution after weighing the merits and demerits of both the forms had chosen the parliamentary from of Government for India. But under such rule the Prime minister has to decide thing with the election in mind. Many decision favorable for the economy of the country in the long-run cannot be taken because they may put the people to temporary hardship. Therefore, the economic progress is not as high as it should be.
But under President’s rule the politics becomes genuinely national. It implies cutting short o the tenure of a duly elected State Government. The Constitution is clear on what President’s rule can be imposed in state. Article 356 is invoked only in case of failure of constitutional machinery in a state.
Presidential form of Government will lead to a two-party system beginning with a broad alliance of likeminded parties. This will in turn cause a dramatic change in the political scene. The small regional and local parties will in course of time disappear. They will either unite or be absorbed by the national parties. So it is the interaction of national, regional and local issue that will decide the texture of politics. A candidate will have to adopt a ground which will mean all things to all men. That would mean diluting of the different ideologies.
It is argued that in the Parliamentary from of Govt. the Prime Minister has to go on for many populist measures. For the fear of losing election he has to surrender to the wishes of his party members and his own ministers. Such is not the case in Presidential form of govt. where he takes only such measures as are beneficial to the country because he ahs a fixed tenure and has no fear of losing his office. It is correct to a great extent.
Is so far as the ills of defection, corruption in the administration, divisive forces, agitations etc. are concerned these problems are not limited to only parliamentary government, but they are present in Presidential form of Govt. also.
But a distinct advantages for India, if it goes for presidential system would be that the states will have elected governors. An elected governor is a powerful figure. He would bring stability in states which generally face political ups and downs and where the chief ministers do not last in office for long. A Governor; if elected for five years will be expected to remain in office for the whole term. he will therefore be able to initiate and implemented the development programmes without interruption and state will stand to benefit.
As a matter of fact both parliamentary and presidential forms of governments have their relative advantages and weaknesses. In practice modern governments have tried to reap and advantages of both, while retaining one or the other forms in its essential characteristics. In Britain, Canada and Australia there exists Parliamentary form of Govt. Presidential form of Govt. is practiced in U.S.A. and France. But in France there is combined form of Govt. to meet the requirements, but all these countries are democracies in the true sense. So one cay say with the changing situations, one can switch over to either of the forms whichever is better with the time.