Both the panelists were excellent. It seems none of two systems is perfect for India.Dr.Sashi Tharoor may be great learned fellow but his opinion has been generated from frustration foreseeing the political future of his party .
I recommend reading the book named Why India Needs the Presidential System by Bhanu Dhamija. It shows how most of the problems we are facing in today’s politics are caused by structural design flaws of current Indian system.
One of the Greatest Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of The United States, Antonin Scalia (An Originalist) once stated that he realised after conducting various visits to Europe to give lectures on the importance of ‘Separation of Powers’ that he would, thanks to a figurehead Executive Chief owing to Parliamentary system, inevitably have to speak only about the independence of the Judiciary. This problem of a subservient Legislature to a Dominant Executive is nothing less than a mockery of Democracy.
Two party system in America hasn't served them great. It leads to capture by special interests and is hard to dislodge. I would prefer proportional representation in the legislature and a non-first past the post system to directly elect the executive which doesn't have the spoiler effect.
Keep in mind *“This Magistrate is not the King… the people are the King.”* the power shall reside on the people on whom should be leading them. The leader should be convicing ONLY the Indian Citizens on why he should be elected NOT filling the pockets of the politicians to win majority support!!
While India has its problems under the current Parliamentary System, India would be much worse off under the Presidential System. It's already proven that Presidential Systems suck - just look at the vast majority of countries using the Presidential System in Latin America and Africa, and for a time, only the USA tended to be the least flawed, but even now it's becoming clear that the US is flawed. (The saving grace of the USA, ironically, is its quasi-Parliamentary Electoral College which has somehow stabilized their Presidential elections, while all other countries with direct presidential elections are lousy and unstable) The vast majority of the best countries in the world are Parliamentary and the worst are mostly Presidential. I can understand that some Indian thinkers like Dr. Tharoor are unhappy with the current system, but going Presidential will destroy India. Fix the flaws of India's Parliamentary System, but don't go Presidential. Don't do it. The Philippines is a country with a Presidential System because we copied it from the USA (but we didn't copy it's Electoral College, didn't copy their senatorial system, and divided the voting of President and Vice President), and we have suffered so much for it. And look at the USA now, too much personalism in politics created their mess. Does India want this? Stick to the Parliamentary System. Fix the flaws that are particular to India, but look at Australia, Canada, and Germany for guidance and don't look at the USA.
Can someone please provide me with the paper on how Presidential Systems are less stable than Parliamentarian Systems? The paper Prof Tarunabh Khaitan spoke about?
Actually it be the CM which should have direct election not necessarily PM. CM has more power to change fate of India not PM. In a diverse country in India, direct PM election could be divisive but state is a homogeneous entity and can very well be a best thing hapoen
A divided country like India would go insane if they tried to elect a unitary executive. Parliament at least stabilizes government by decentralizing power between constituent representatives.
I just want you to know that switching to presidential system will only make India's problems worse. It'll cause gridlocks, it'll give way to dictatorship, and it is prone to coups. And most of the rich countries in Europe (like in Germany, Austria, Italy, etc.) are also using parliamentary system. You have to stay with your current system. I don't want you to experience worse problems like in countries under presidential system have experienced, and still experiencing right now. Read also the book of Spanish political scientist Dr. Juan Linz titled "The Perils of Presidntialism" to know more about the dangers of presidential system that a country will experience once the said system is adopted.
The 'basic structure' of constitution is not clearly defined by supreme court. The different concepts that encompasses this idea of 'basic structure' is through a number of judgements it had a reference with
Both won't work here. Europe model of Economic Union with separate countries can only work here which was the norm before and during regime. The brahmins who occupied all decisive positions when British quit are in denial due to phobia to lose comforts they have amassed with brahmin-muslim Nehru-Jinnah partition and have restricted the rest using a pale linguistic state reorganization law which cannot assert even for jobs from tax they pay.
![[Debate] Should India adopt the Presidential System or Stay with the Parliamentary System ?](/img/logo.svg){kind=logo}
