Parliamentary Government, a gateway to good governance. The most stable and progressive countries In the world today have a parliamentary form of government. These Include countries Like Japan, Canada, Australia, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Spain, Norway, Sweden and also India, Singapore and Malaysia in Asia. India and the US are undoubtedly the two biggest democratic countries of the world today, the basic difference between them being the parliamentary democracy of the former and congressional or presidential democracy of the latter.
Ironically both these countries have their roots in the British reliantly democracy which have a long and remarkable history of democracy. For a country that gave the ‘magna cart’ to the world it is a great reward for it when the proponents of democracy achieve greatly in giving the people what they need, their rights and freedom. If any distinctions and comparisons are to be made between the parliamentary and presidential forms of government, these two countries are the best examples.
In a parliamentary government, the parliament exercises both the legislative and the executive powers. Therefore, Its power Is unified and hence It ensures the co-ordinates, efficient and effective exercises of legislature and executive powers: the making of laws and policies and their implementation. The most commonly attributed advantages to the parliamentary system is that it is faster and easier to pass legislation because of the dependency of the executive branch on the direct and indirect support of the legislative branch and often includes members of the legislature.
Thus, this amounts to the executive as the majority party or coalition of parties in the legislature possessing more votes in order to pass legislation. Stalemates occur very often in the presidential form of government in passing legislations due to the difference of predominance of political parties In the legislative branch and the executive branch. This intense rivalry and competition for power Is evident in the US presidential government and accordingly Its executive might not be able to properly Implement his or her manifesto.
The prime minister and the government assume collective responsibility and accountability to the parliament and the power for governance. It can be argued that the power is more spread out in the power structure of parliamentarians. The people will know whom to reward for good governance and administration, or punish for failure and corruption. It ensures the election to the head of government-the prime minister for his leadership and experience in the party and in public service, as known to party members.
It helps to prevent election the head of government on the basis of personal popularity, not on proven competence and experience. Most evidently, an executive In most of the parliamentary government systems is chiefly voted Into office on the basis of his or her party’s manifesto, therefore, the will of the people Is more easily Instituted in a parliamentary system. It gives chance to political parties that are democratic, disciplined, united and effective In making and carrying a programmer of government that can secure popular support. It empowers the people Ant to govern the country and the regional and the local governments.
However, in the presidential system, because of the power of the media and cinema, candidates for president and the senate are increasingly being elected for their popularity and Anneal rather than their political leadership. In a parliamentary system, it is easier to Change the head of government and the ruling party whenever it becomes necessary by a vote of no confidence in the parliament. The British parliament is praised for producing serious debates, for allowing the change in power without election, and for allowing elections at any time.
There is no need for impeachment, people power revolts, and military intervention that cause political instability, disrupt the economy, discourage foreign investors and hurt the people especially the poor. Lately we have seen such government breakdowns and people revolts against the unpopular autocratic rulers in the North African countries and West Asia, popularly known as the Arab spring. This is the result of prolonged suppression of the people under either the autocratic rulers or government systems which were alien to parliamentary governments.
Some scholars claim that the parliamentary system is less prone to authoritarian collapse. They point out that since World War II, two-third of the third Nor countries establishing parliamentary government successfully made the transition to democracy. Besides the quicker legislation of parliamentary system, it also provides attractive features to the ethnically, racially and ideologically divided populace. In a universal presidential system, all executive power is concentrated in the president unlike the parliamentary system with collegial executive where power is more divided.
In the 1989, Lebanese Taft agreement, in order to give Muslims greater political power, Lebanon moved from a semi-presidential with a strong president to a system more structurally similar to classical parliamentarians. Iraq similarly disdained a presidential system out of fears that such a system would be tantamount to Shiite domination; Afghanistan’s minorities effused to go along with a presidency as strong as the Pushpins desired. Parliamentary form of government encourages decentralization and devolution of powers which facilitates a better rapport of the executives with the people.
People in presidential government countries have began questioning the effectiveness of their government systems as it can be seen in the case of some of the African countries and Philippines. A recent World Bank Study found that parliamentary systems are associated with lower corruption, therefore it can be said that it is a better option than the rest though perfection may be far from here. In India, as elsewhere, the parliamentary systems are established, it features common as well as unique parliamentarians attributes.
The parliament has collective responsibility; political homogeneity because generally ministers are from the same party and double membership I. E. The legislature and the executive. The coexistence of federal and unitary governments simultaneously, is one of its’ unique features that seems to work in its own ways for an already fast maturing democracy of India. In India whether the parliamentary system should be continued or replaced by the presidential system as been a point of discussion in our country since asses.
This matter was considered in detail by Saran Sings Committee appointed by the congress government in 1975. The committee opined that the parliamentary government has government. Today, in a world where modern democratic governments have evolved into parliamentary and presidential governments, democracy is comparatively well practiced by the parliamentary governments than the presidential governments. In summary a parliamentary government helps to good governance and promotion of democracy.
