1.
Unstable
Government: the parliamentary system does not provide a stable government.
There is no guarantee that a government can survive its tenure. The ministers
depend on the mercy of the majority legislators for their continuity and
survival in office. A no-confidence motion or political defection or evils of
multiparty coalition can make the government unstable. The government headed by
Morarji Desai, Charan Singh, V P Singh, Chandra sekhar, Deva Gowda and I K
Gujral are some such examples.
2.
No
Continuity of policies: The parliamentary system is not conductive for the
formulation and implementation of long-term policies. This is due to the uncertainty
of the tenure of the government. A change in the ruling party is usually
followed by changes in the policies of the government. For example, the Janata
Government headed by Morarji Desai in 1977 reversed a large number of policies
of the previous congress Government. The same was repeated by the Congress
government after it came back t power in 1980.
3.
Dictatorship
of the Cabinet: when the ruling party enjoys absolute majority in the
Parliament the cabinet becomes autocratic and exercises nearly unlimited
powers. H J Laski says that the parliamentary system gives the executive an
opportunity for tyranny system gives the executive an opportunity for tyranny.
Ramsay Muir, the former British Prime Minister, also complained of the
‘dictatorship of the cabinet’². This phenomenon was witnessed during the era of
Indian Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi.
4.
Against
Separation of Powers: In the parliamentary system, the legislature and the
executive are together and inseparable. The cabinet acts as the leader of
legislature as well as the executive. As Bagehot point out, “the cabinet is a
hyphen that joins the buckle that binds the executive and legislative
departments together. Hence the whole system of government goes against the
letter and spirit of the theory of separation of powers³. In fact there is a
fusion of powers.
5.
Government
by amateurs: the parliamentary system is not conductive to administrative
efficiency as the ministers are not experts in their fields. The Prime Minister
has a limited choice in the selection of ministers; his choice is restricted to
the members of parliament alone and does not extend to external talent.
Moreover, the ministers devote most of their time to parliamentary work,
cabinet meetings and party activates.
Now
, let us compare the parliamentary and presidential systems in terms of their
features, merits and demerits.
No comments:
Post a Comment