What is the Difference Between a

Parliamentary and Presidential System of

Government?

In defining parliamentary and presidential systems of government, dictionary explanations may

confuse rather than clarify, despite Mr. Webster’s all around good intentions. According to the
dictionary, a parliamentary government is one in which a prime minister or premier holds office
as long as he or she commands a majority in the parliament, which is the primary legislative
body concerned with public affairs. The presidential system refers to the chief executive of a
government, which has no prime minister.

One major difference between a parliamentary system and a presidential form of government
concerns the elections process. In a presidential government, the president and members of
Congress are chosen in separate elections while in a parliamentary process, one size fits all, so to
speak. Also in a parliamentary system the parliament can vote a governing body out of office,
while the United States Congress, except in extreme cases of impeachment, cannot. Indirectly,
this signifies a weak position for the chief executive in a presidential system of government. The
president is unable to dissolve government and order a new election, which a British Prime
Minister is well within his or her rights to do.

Parliamentary government is always democratic although a presidential system is never

parliamentary. Within the parliamentary system, both the legislature and the chief executive must
be in agreement on policy, and if they aren’t, they must work at it until they are. A British prime
minister is always a member of parliament but in a presidential system, the chief executive of a
presidency as well as all members of the executive branch of government, except the vice
president, cannot be members of Congress.

The differences between a parliamentary system of government and presidential form of

government may be a bit clearer now, but they are still terms that are often misused. In a
parliamentary system, the government may introduce legislation, but within a presidential system
the chief executive cannot, although he is permitted to veto legislation. There is always,
however, within a presidential system, a clear division between the legislative body and the
government.

Ref:- http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-a-parliamentary-and-presidential-
system-of-government.htm
Parliamentary versus Presidential
governments
Two of the most popular types of democracy are the presidential
and parliamentary government systems.

A nation’s type of government refers to how that state’s executive, legislative, and judicial
organs are organized. All nations need some sort of government to avoid anarchy. Democratic
governments are those that permit the nation’s citizens to manage their government either
directly or through elected representatives. This is opposed to authoritarian governments that
limit or prohibit the direct participation of its citizens. Two of the most popular types of
democratic governments are the presidential and parliamentary systems.

The office of President characterizes the presidential system. The President is both the chief
executive and the head of state. The President is unique in that he or she is elected
independently of the legislature. The powers invested in the President are usually balanced
against those vested in the legislature. In the American presidential system, the legislature must
debate and pass various bills. The President has the power to veto the bill, preventing its
adoption. However, the legislature may override the President’s veto if they can muster enough
votes. The American President’s broadest powers rest in foreign affairs. The President has the
right to deploy the military in most situations, but does not have the right to officially declare
war. More recently the American President requested the right to approve treaties without the
consent of the legislature. The American Congress denied this bill and was able to override the
President’s veto.

In parliamentary governments the head of state and the chief executive are two separate offices.
Many times the head of state functions in a primarily ceremonial role, while the chief executive
is the head of the nation’s legislature. The most striking difference between presidential and
parliamentary systems is in the election of the chief executive. In parliament systems, the chief
executive is not chosen by the people but by the legislature. Typically the majority party in the
parliament chooses the chief executive, known as the Prime Minister. However, in some
parliaments there are so many parties represented that none hold a majority. Parliament
members must decide among themselves whom to elect as Prime Minister. The fusion of the
legislative and executive branches in the parliamentary system tends to lead to more discipline
among political party members. Party members in parliaments almost always vote strictly along
party lines. Presidential systems, on the contrary, are less disciplined and legislators are free to
vote their conscious with fewer repercussions from their party. Debate styles also differ between
the two systems. Presidential system legislators make use of a filibuster, or the right to prolong
speeches to delay legislative action. Parliamentary systems will call for cloture, or an end to
debate so voting can begin.

Most European nations follow the parliamentary system of government. Britain is the most well
known parliamentary system. Because Great Britain was once a pure monarchy, the function of
the head of state was given to the royal family, while the role of chief executive was established
with Parliament. Some parliaments, however, do not have a history of monarchy. Israel is a
parliamentary system with a president. The president, however, does not hold the same power as
a president in a presidential system, but functions as the head of state. In both presidential and
parliamentary systems, the chief executive can be removed from office by the legislature.
Parliamentary systems use a ‘vote of no confidence’ where a majority of parliament members
vote to remove the Prime Minister from office. A new election is then called. In presidential
systems, a similar process is used where legislators vote to impeach the President from office.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, democracy has begun to flourish around the world. As
emerging nations struggle to identify themselves, they are also debating which form of
democracy is best for them. Depending on the nation and its citizens, they may choose the more
classic parliamentary system or the less rigid presidential system. They could also blend to two
popular systems together to create the hybrid government that works best for them.

Ref:- http://www.essortment.com/all/presidentialpar_rket.htm

A Comparative study of Presidential and Parliamentary forms of Govt- Essay

Presidential and Parliamentary systems are the two possible forms of Government in a
democracy. In England there is the Parliamentary system, and it has worked so well over the
years that it has become a model for a number of other countries. In the U.S.A, on the other
hand, there is the Presidential form of executive, and it has been working quite successfully in
that country. These two forms of government have their own distinctive characteristics and their
own respective merits and demerits.

Soon after the inauguration of the Republic of Indian on 25 January, 1950, India opted for the
Parliamentary form of Government, modeled closely on the English system, hoping that it will
work as well as in India as it has worked in England. But in recent times it has been felt that the
Presidential system was urgently needed. The issue has become a matter of hot controversy,
between the 'pro-changers' and 'no-changers' amongst the intelligential, the political scientists,
the jurists, the judges, the politicians, the journalists, and our highly politicized, though largely
illiterate, electorate. Let is first examine the salient features of both these systems, and then form
our own conclusion.

(1) In the Parliamentary system the Prime Minister and Chief Minister are totally dependent
upon their respective Legislatures in the matter of selection of Ministers. On the other hand, they
are excepted to select men of vision, integrity, ability, professional knowledge and practical
experience. On the other, they are supposed to give adequate representation to the privilege as
well as to the neglected sections of society. In case of the Centre, for instance, Prime Minister
has to select her or his entire team from a small pool of 791 MP's who, in turn, are elected in
most cases due to their popularity or on account of their loyalty to the party. The Prime Minister
may be bale to pick up such able and experienced ministers only if he or she is left free to make
the selection from wherever deserving hands are available, and is not tied down to the small
groups of MP's who consist largely of professional politicians and sycophants.

Under the Presidential system, on the other hand, the President is not hampered by such
considerations. He is not tied to, or subordinate to, the legislature. He is free to choose his
cabinet of ministers from outside the members of the legislature. In this way, he can induct really
competent, experienced and deserving people into the government. He can choose freely men of
vision and integrity, of professional knowledge and practical experience.

(2) In the Parliamentary system for the reasons listed above, the ministers are not able to provide
effective leadership. As they do not have the requite expertise, they have the requisite expertise,
they have to depend largely on the civil servants, their secretaries and under-secretaries. They
become mere puppets in the hands of the officers, and thus democracy degenerates into
bureaucracy.

The Presidential system suffers from no such disadvantages. The ministers have the necessary
expertise, and so are not dominated by the civil servants. They know their business, and can see
to it that their policies and programmes are faithfully carried out.

(3) As the ministers are chosen from party men in the Parliamentary form, the party is deprived
of capable persons needed to keep the organisation united, homogenous, strong and viable. As a
result of this drain of talent from the party to government, the party organisation grows weak,
and indiscipline and infighting, are the result. The Presidential system is largely free from this
drawbacks, as well as from rivalry and friction between the party bosses and the ministerial
wing. The party and the government thus work in harmony.

(4) The politics of defection is the worst fault of the Parliamentary form. Legislators and M.P's
freely cross the floor. Defections become the order of the day. This result in corruption,
nepotism, casteism, regionalism, and often short lived coalition government are formed.
Defection leads to multiplication of political parties, political instability comes in the way of
constructive work. The evil is unheard of in the other system.

(5) The legislators and M.P's are not free to vote according to their conscience in the
Parliamentary system. They must obey the party-whip or face expulsion. The Presidential system
is superior in this respect also.

On the basic of all these factors it may be concluded that the Presidential system is desirable, for
it has the following merits, (1) A strong and stable Government (2) An able and mature ministry
thought direct induction of top professionals and technocrats (3) Legislator's freedom from the
fear or 'party whip' resulting from the separation of the Executive from the Legislature (4)
Gradual emergency of the two party-system as a result of pre-election coalition of like-minded
parties, before the very eyes of the electorate (5) Bureaucracy in under the mature surveillance of
political leadership, and (6) Rampant defections and uneasy post-election coalitions tend to
disappear.

Such are, no doubt, the advantages of the Presidential system. It certainly means greater stability
and sanity in the politics of a country. However, it suffers from at least one serious drawback. By
making the President and his colleagues independent of the Legislature, it makes the makes the
executive too powerful and this carries within it seeds of Dictatorship. This is the worst aspect of
the Presidential system. The President is elected for a fixed term, say of five years, and he cannot
be removed from office even if he loses the confidence of the legislature. This danger, this
inherent drawback, will have to be overcome in some way or the other, before it can be
acceptable to a county like India, whose genius is essentials democratic.

To remedy the present ill, the present system of Parliamentary executive may suitably by
modified within the frame-work of the 'basic structure' of our constitution and in the light of he
experience of its working acquired during the last 50 years. Any drastic changes may simple
mean falling from the frying pan into the fire. In this connection one is also reminded of the
English poet Goldsmith's woods : "For forms of Government let fools contend, Whatever is best
administrated is best." It is good administration which counts and not the form of government.
Any form of government will do, if the people who run it are capable, efficient, hard working,
sincere and honest. Many of the evils that beset Indian politics today will disappear, if there are
right type of people at the helm of affairs.

Ref:- http://www.rajputbrotherhood.com/knowledge-hub/essay/a-comparative-study-of-presidential-
and-parliamentary-forms-of-govt-essay.html

Every week the British prime minister appears before the House of Commons and
must answer questions put to him or her by the members of Parliament. Sometimes
it is suggested that the president of the United States should be subject to similar
questioning by members of Congress, as a way of encouraging closer interaction
between president and Congress. If the president did so, however, it would be his
or her choice; the president is elected directly by the people and is answerable to the voters rather than
the legislature. Whereas the prime minister has no choice because he or she is a member of Parliament
and is directly accountable to that body. Herein lies a very basic difference between the presidential
system of government as it exists in the United States and the parliamentary system that has evolved in
Great Britain.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution adopted the principle first enunciated by the Baron de Montesquieu
of separation of powers. They carefully spelled out the independence of the three branches of
government: executive, legislative, and judicial. At the same time, however, they provided for a system in
which some powers should be shared: Congress may pass laws, but the president can veto them; the
president nominates certain public officials, but Congress must approve the appointments; and laws
passed by Congress as well as executive actions are subject to judicial review. Thus the separation of
powers is offset by what are sometimes called checks and balances.
In a parliamentary system, by contrast, the legislature holds supreme power. The prime minister is
chosen by members of the legislature (Parliament) from among their own number and in practice is the
leader of the majority party in the legislature. The cabinet members must also belong to the legislature,
where they are subject to the same kind of questioning that the prime minister experiences. If the prime
minister loses the support of the majority in the legislature on a significant vote, he or she must resign,
and elections are called immediately. Thus, whereas in the United States, elections are held at fixed
intervals, in Britain and other parliamentary countries, they may occur at any time, the only restriction
being (in Britain) that they must be held at least once every five years.

Here are some topics to explore that relate to Presidential

and Parliamentary Government. Looking at the articles,
images, and other materials in this Research Starter may
give you more ideas. Each topic has one or more articles to
start you on your research, but remember that it takes more
than one article to make a research paper. Continue your
research with our list of articles below.

What are some of the differences between a parliamentary

and constitutional government?
Parliament

Constitution of the United States (I)

Constitution of the United States (II)

What are the separation of powers and why is it important in

parliamentary and constitutional governments?
Separation of Powers

Prime Minister

Impeachment
 English (en)
World's states colored by form of government as of April 2006.
   Full presidential republics.
   Presidential republics with the role of the president and prime minister combined.
   Semi-presidential republics.
   Parliamentary republics.
   Parliamentary constitutional monarchies in which the monarch does not personally exercise
power.
   Parliamentary constitutional monarchies in which the monarch personally exercises power
(often alongside a weak parliament).
   Absolute monarchies.
   Single-party republics.
   Military dictatorships
   Countries which do not fit any of the above systems.

Note that several states constitutionally deemed to be multiparty republics are broadly described by outsiders as
authoritarian states. This chart aims to represent de jure form of government, not de facto degree of democracy.
India

Democratic system in India also offers a clear separation of powers. India follows a
parliamentary system of government, hence Executive mainly comes from Parliament only.
Judiciary is fairly independent of rest of the two organs. Executive powers are vested with
President who is assisted by Council of Ministers. All three organs have checks and balances
over each others to maintain the balance of powers.

[edit] Republic of China (Taiwan): five branches

Main article: Government of the Republic of China

The government of the Republic of China has five branches:

 Executive Yuan - led by the premier but in actuality it is the president who sets policy
 Legislative Yuan - unicameral
 Judicial Yuan - its Constitutional Court (highest) and Supreme Court have different jurisdictions
 Control Yuan - audit branch
 Examination Yuan - civil service personnel management and human resources

The president and vice president as well as the defunct National Assembly are constitutionally
not part of the above five branches. Before being abolished in 2005, the National Assembly was
a constitutional convention and electoral college for the president and vice president. Its
constitutional amending powers were passed to the legislative yuan and its electoral powers were
passed to the electorate.

The relationship between the executive and legislative branches are poorly defined. An example
of the problems this causes is the near complete political paralysis that results when the
president, who has neither the power to veto nor the ability to dissolve the legislature and call
new elections, cannot negotiate with the legislature when his party is in the minority.[5] The
examination and control yuans are marginal branches; their leaders as well as the leaders of the
executive and judicial yuans are appointed by the president and confirmed by the legislative
yuan. The legislature is the only branch that chooses its own leadership. The vice president has
practically no responsibilities.

[edit] United Kingdom

 Parliament = Legislative
 Government = Executive
 Courts = Judiciary

Although the doctrine of separation of power plays a role in the United Kingdom's constitutional
doctrine, the UK constitution is often described as having "a weak separation of powers" A V
Dicey, despite its constitution being the one to which Montesquieu originally referred. For
example, in the United Kingdom, the executive forms a subset of the legislature, as did—to a
lesser extent—the judiciary until the establishment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.
The Prime Minister, the Chief Executive, sits as a member of the Parliament of the United
Kingdom, either as a peer in the House of Lords or as an elected member of the House of
Commons (by convention, and as a result of the supremacy of the Lower House, the Prime
Minister now sits in the House of Commons) and can effectively be removed from office by a
simple majority vote. Furthermore, while the courts in the United Kingdom are undoubtedly
amongst the most independent in the world, the Law Lords, who are the final arbiters of judicial
disputes in the UK, until recently sat simultaneously in the House of Lords, the upper house of
the legislature, although this arrangement ceased in 2009 when the Supreme Court of the United
Kingdom came into existence. Furthermore, because of the existence of Parliamentary
sovereignty, while the theory of separation of powers may be studied there, a system such as that
of the UK is more accurately described as a "fusion of powers".[citation needed]

The development of the British constitution, which is not a codified document, is based on this
fusion in the person of the Monarch, who has a formal role to play in the legislature (Parliament,
which is where legal and political sovereignty lies, is the Crown-in-Parliament, and is summoned
and dissolved by the Sovereign who must give his or her Royal Assent to all Bills so that they
become Acts), the executive (the Sovereign appoints all ministers of His/Her Majesty's
Government, who govern in the name of the Crown) and the judiciary (the Sovereign, as the
fount of justice, appoints all senior judges, and all public prosecutions are brought in his or her
name).

The British legal systems are based on common law traditions which require:

 Police or regulators cannot initiate complaints under criminal law but can only investigate
(prosecution is mostly reserved for the Crown Prosecution Service), which prevents selective
enforcement, e.g. the 'fishing expedition' which is often specifically forbidden.
 Prosecutors cannot withhold evidence from attorneys for the defendant; to do so results in
mistrial or dismissal. Accordingly, their relation to police is no advantage.
 Defendants convicted can appeal, but only fresh and compelling evidence not available at trial
can be introduced, restricting the power of the court of appeal to the process of law applied.

[edit] United States: three branches

Main article: Separation of powers under the United States Constitution

In the United States Constitution, Article I Section I gives Congress only those "legislative
powers herein granted" and proceeds to list those permissible actions in Article I Section 8, while
Section 9 lists actions that are prohibited for Congress. The vesting clause in Article II places no
limits on the Executive branch, simply stating that, "The Executive Power shall be vested in a
President of the United States of America."[6] The Supreme Court holds "The judicial Power"
according to Article III, and it established the implication of Judicial review in Marbury vs
Madison.[7] The federal government refers to the branches as "branches of government", while
some systems use "government" to describe the executive. The Executive branch has attempted
to claim power arguing for separation of powers to include being the Commander in Chief of a
standing army since the Civil war, executive orders, emergency powers and security
classifications since WWII, national security, signing statements, and the scope of the unitary
executive.
[edit] Checks and balances

To prevent one branch from becoming supreme, protect the "opulent minority" from the
majority[8], and to induce the branches to cooperate, governance systems that employ a separation
of powers need a way to balance each of the branches. Typically this was accomplished through
a system of "checks and balances", the origin of which, like separation of powers itself, is
specifically credited to Montesquieu. Checks and balances allow for a system based regulation
that allows one branch to limit another, such as the power of Congress to alter the composition
and jurisdiction of the federal courts

Legislative Executive Judicial

 Also known as  Also known as the  Determines which laws Congress

Congress. President. intended to apply to any given
 Makes all laws.  Preserves, protects case
 Only Congress can and defends the  Determines whether a law is
declare martial law. Constitution. unconstitutional
Federal executive  Faithfully executes the  Determines how Congress meant
orders are not laws of the United the law to apply to disputes
constitutional as they States.  Determines how a law acts to
are executive, not  Executes the determine the disposition of
legislative. instructions of prisoners
 Controls all the Congress.  Determines how a law acts to
money; taxes,  May veto laws (but the compel testimony and the
borrows, and sets the veto may be production of evidence
budget (with overridden by  Determines how laws should be
exception of Congress by a 2/3 interpreted to assure uniform
inappropriate majority) or refuse to policies in a top-down fashion via
spending by central execute them if she/he the appeals process, but gives
bank). deems them discretion in individual cases to
 Has sole power to unconstitutional. low-level judges. (The amount of
declare war.  Executes the spending discretion depends upon the
 Oversees, investigates, authorized by standard of review, determined
and makes the rules Congress. by the type of case in question.)
for the government  Executes the  Polices its own members
and its officers. instructions of  Is never immune to arbitrary
 Confirms the heads of Congress when it dismissal by Congress through
the executive branch. declares war or makes impeachment proceedings
 Confirms federal rules for the military.
judicial appointments,  Declares states of
and defines by law the emergency and
jurisdiction of the publishes regulations
judicial branch in cases and executive orders.
not specified by the  Creates treaties, and
Constitution. appoints judges and
 Ratifies treaties. other executive heads,
  Originates and tries both with the advice
cases of impeachment. and consent of the
Senate.
 Has the power to grant
pardons for crimes
against the United
States.
 Has the power to put
flags at half staff.
 Is the commander in
chief of the armed
forces.

Ref:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers#India
Presidential, Parliamentary and mixed systems of governance
Annabel Charnock , 21/03/2007

The operation of a system of government is partly determined by design and partly by other less
concrete factors, such as tradition, events, and the incumbents. In many countries (Ghana
included) the structure of government is laid down in special legislation – the Constitution.
Constitutions are drawn up to act as the blueprint for government, to establish and entrench the
procedures by which a government is formed and then governs. They are usually enshrined in
‘higher’ law that makes them more difficult to alter than normal laws, and they are meant to be
the defining document for the political structures of the nation.

Yet constitutions are also designed to be long-lasting, so that they will not become out-dated
over the decades and centuries. In order to achieve this, constitutional rules allow for some
degree of flexibility and adaptability. They do not attempt to set out every detail of government,
instead allowing for present incumbents to have some ability to shape offices and processes as
necessary. Constitutional rules therefore often establish the formal division of powers between
the head of government and other bodies such as Parliament, or the head of state or President,
but these rules have proved, to differing extents, malleable, and various other factors play a
considerable part in determining the power of the heads of government.

The United States of America was the first to start the trend towards constitutions in 1788, and
the system established by its Constitution is the prime example of a Presidential system, with a
powerful, directly elected President who is both head of state and head of government. By
contrast, the longest standing political system – Westminster – has no formal constitution.
Britain’s system of government evolved over hundreds of years, and remains today largely
unwritten and uncodified.

The US and the UK are the foremost examples of their different systems of Government,
respectively Presidential and Parliamentary, systems which in the course of the twentieth century
have come to dominate the global political landscape. In adopting one or other of these systems
other countries have adapted them to suit their particular circumstances and history. This has led
to the creation of hybrid systems which mix features of both the Parliamentary and Presidential
systems, typically having as a result both a President and a Prime Minister. The French Fifth
Republic is one such example. In France, the division of power between the President and Prime
Minister is laid down in the Constitution – as explained in yesterday’s Statesman. However, the
operation of the system and the balance of power between the Prime Minister and President is
significantly determined by the personality and relationship between incumbents, the political
support they and their parties enjoy, and, of course, events.

The American Presidential System

The American Presidency is frequently viewed as the most powerful office in the world.
Institutionally, the American President is imbued with considerable power by the constitutional,
by his direct election, the weakness of cabinet government, and by the relatively un-cohesive
nature of Congress meaning it has less potential to act as a decision making entity. Since the
creation of the ‘modern presidency’ under Franklin D Roosevelt, the President has been
considered to have the main responsibility for setting the policy agenda. The only example in
recent times of another body assuming any real level of policy and legislative initiation is
following the 1994 Congressional elections, when a Republican majority was returned with
many of the candidates having campaigned on the ‘Contract with America’ manifesto. This was
a great break with precedence, and for a while Congress showed a desire to drive the decision-
making agenda. However the argument that their election formed the basis of a mandate was
weakened by internal party problems, and the public perception that it was improper for
Congress to prorogue this power traditionally assigned to the President. The President’s role as
decision maker, rather than co-ordinator seemed to emerge unscathed from this event. Yet this
example highlights a feature that is also present in the French and Ghanaian system – the
potential for a situation arising in which the executive and legislative are held by majorities of
different political parties.

This situation has been a much more frequent occurrence in the American system than the
French, and is yet to happen in the short history of Ghana’s Fourth Republic. When it occurs it
does limit the ability of the President to achieve his legislative agenda, and increases the need for
him to co-operate and compromise with Congressmen in order to achieve the necessary support
to pass legislation. In such occasions, the US President has often been witnessed to focus more
on the foreign policy sphere, as here, in his position as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces
and with the power to sign executive agreements and deploy troops without the consent of
Congress, he is able to act more decisively rather than consensually.
However, even when the President enjoys a majority of his party in Congress, he is still unable to
assert himself over the legislative chamber in a manner similar to the British Prime Minister.
This is largely due to the loosely disciplined nature of the parties in Congress, in which there is a
much higher occasion of cross-voting, resulting in the inability for a President to ever fully rely
on a majority of party in Congress, instead always have to work to ensure that he receives the
votes necessary to pass his legislation. As the Political Scientist Robert Elgie concludes: “the
President has to negotiate constantly and carefully with members of Congress in order to pass
legislation. Presidents cannot command or order Congress to act. They cannot draw up a policy
programme and be assured of its adoption.”

The President therefore occupies a difficult, but central, position in the cobweb of American
government. He is expected to decide and formulate policy, but he is constrained by his inability
to secure its passage without working to build up support in Congress. Increasingly the President
is required to oversee and co-ordinate the functions of government, within the Executive Office
and more widely, in order to penetrate the system and ensure it continues to operate smoothly.
The lack of party discipline and structure in Congress, and the fact that Cabinet and the
bureaucracy are appointed by the President externally to Congress, means that the President is
the only one linked to all areas, and that in order to ensure they work together, he has to co-
ordinate the running of government as he is uniquely placed for such a role. The Presidential
reliance on the use of the veto as a threat to ensure Congress doesn’t alter legislation too much
indicates the limited power the President has in deciding policy.

The British System

The traditional view of the British Prime Minister couldn’t be more different from that of the US
President. Historically the Prime Minister was simply primus inter pares (first amongst equals)
within a system of cabinet government, in which cabinet was the forum for all decision making
and policy formulation, and the Prime Minister simply acted as the over-seer, the co-ordinator of
government. Yet over the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the role of the Prime
Minister has changed so much that in 1976 Lord Hailsham famously described the British system
as one of “elective dictatorship”. This was before the premierships of Margaret Thatcher (1979-
1990) and Tony Blair (1997- ), both of which have been widely described as increasingly
Presidential in style and debate about the role of the British Prime Minister tends to focus more
on claims of increasing ‘presidentialism’.

As the British Prime Minister does not have a constitutionally defined role, or work within the
construct of constitutionally divided powers, the British system does allow for greater flexibility,
and this has been witnessed with strong, authoritative Prime Ministers like Churchill, Thatcher
and Blair taking on a dominant leadership role, rather than simply one of co-ordination. They
were able to entrench themselves in the centre of government because the electoral system gave
them disproportionate strength in the House of Commons, which bolstered their power and gave
them much greater ability to stamp their authority over the legislature.

The French Political Structure

The Fifth Republic of France came into existence with the introduction of the new Constitution
in 1958. The major criticism of the constitution of the Fourth Republic was that it had
empowered parliament too much, at the expense of an effective government. The new
Constitution attempted to rectify this, and Philip Williams wrote in 1968 that “Under the new
regime the Parliament of France, once among the most powerful in the world, became one of the
weakest.”

The new constitution set the stage for executive leadership, with constitutional rules giving the
executive greater power than the legislative.

The constitution also formalises the division of power within the executive between the two key
figures, President and Prime Minister, granting powers to the President only in specific areas like
foreign and defence policy. Robert Elgie states that “A literal reading of the Constitution would
give the impression that there should by Prime Ministerial leadership” and the Constitution states
that “The Prime Minister is head of government” and that “The government determines and
conducts the nation’s policies”.

However, in practice France has experienced Presidential leadership since the inception of the
Fifth Republic. The power of the President has been elevated and extended beyond its prescribed
limitations as set out in the Constitution, and this has been at the expense of the head of
government, the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has become, for the majority, but not the
entirety, of the history of the Republic, an acquiescent figure, appointed by the President and
principally loyal to him. The constitutional rules have clearly not therefore determined the power
of the head of government in France.
As the head of a parliamentary government the Prime Minister of France benefits from the fact
that he has a majority of his party or coalition in parliament. This should enable him to much
more successfully and reliably set a legislative agenda, and get their desired legislation through
parliament. Yet the strength of the head of government in relation to the legislature can vary
greatly, depending on the size of the majority, whether it is of the same party as that of the
President, the stability of the coalition, and his relationship with the party or parties he represents
as head of the government.

In France, elections that result in periods of ‘cohabitation’ can completely alter the dynamic of
central government and the power of the Prime Minister. This was first really seen in 1986 when
the election produced a right wing majority in the National Assembly, and thus the President, the
socialist Mitterrand, was necessitated to appoint a Gaullist Prime Minister to represent this
parliamentary majority.

This situation reoccurred in 1993, and both times the consequence has been a period during
which the Prime Minister reclaims his constitutional rights to set the policy agenda, and the
President relinquishes the wheel of state.
Control over the party itself can also have a significant effect on the power of a head of
government. Those who have a firm grip over the party have a more assured power base from
which to lead the government and determine policy. Those who need to spend more time
placating their party and ensuring its support are much more restrained by the continual need for
approval, and less able to take the initiative in governing.

The position of a French Prime Ministers in relation to his party is often related to whether the
President is also of the same party. In instances when this has been the case, the party machine
and party loyalty seems primarily geared towards the President, and the Prime Minister is
marginalised. When this isn’t the case, however, the Prime Minister is suddenly looked to by his
party as their most influential member, and this boost in profile significantly helps increase his
power.

Thus it should be remembered that constitutional design is only one factor – albeit a key one – in
determining where power lies in any given political system. It is impossible to determine with
any certainty precisely how a particular constitution will operate in practice as in different
circumstances, with different incumbents and different events; the same constitution can work
very differently. Ghana would do well to bear this in mind so early on in the history of the Fourth
Republic.

Ref:- http://www.thestatesmanonline.com/pages/news_detail.php?section=11&newsid=2810
India Political System
According to our Constitution, India is a "sovereign secular socialist democratic republic." It has
28 states and seven Union Territories. With a population of approximately 112 crore, India
happens to be the largest democracy in the world. Indian polity is a multi-party democracy,
based on the adult franchise system of voting. That is any Indian citizen of 18 and above, who is
not debarred by law, can vote in the Indian elections, at national, state and local levels.

India is a parliamentary democracy and a federal parliamentary representative democratic

republic, where the Prime Minister is the head of government. He or she should be chosen by the
MPs (Member of Parliaments) of the ruling party or the coalition that comes to power, and is the
focal point of political power in India.

However, the Prime Minister is formally appointed by the President of India. Presently
Manmohan Singh is the Prime Minister of India.

Indian President: A Titular Head

President is the head of the state and the first citizen of the country, and also the supreme
commander of the armed forces. Though in theory he/she holds considerable power, but in
reality he/she is a titular head, whose role is similar to that of the Constitutional Monarch in the
UK. The President is elected by members of an electoral college, consisting of elected members
of both Houses of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies of the states, with suitable weightage
given to each vote. The election uses single transferable voting method of proportional
representation. The President's term of office is five years, and the President can be re-elected to
his/her office.

Among his/her important powers on paper, the President can proclaim an emergency in the
country if he/she is satisfied that the security of the country or of any part of its territory is
threatened whether by war or external aggression or armed rebellion. When there is a failure of
the constitutional machinery in a state, he/she can assume to himself/herself all or any of the
functions of the government of that state. However, in reality, the Indian polity entails that most
of the political authority excluding few exceptions, and their execution, rests with the Council of
Ministers headed by the Prime Minister, which comprises Cabinet Ministers, Ministers of
State(Independent Charge), and Ministers of State, whose suggestions President is bound to
oblige.

In the Indian polity, the Union Government (the Council of Ministers, headed by the Prime
Minister) executes its administrative powers in the name of the President, whose post is largely
ceremonial. Besides the formal appointment of the Prime Minister, the President is also
responsible for making many important appointments such as of the Council of Ministers in the
Union Government (on the 'advice' of the Prime Minister, which he/she is supposed to adhere to
anyway), the Chief Justice and other judges of the Supreme Court of India and High Courts,
Governors and Attorney General among others. Pratibha Patil is the twelfth President of India,
and also the first woman to become the President of India.

The President of India can also be removed before his/her term through impeachment. A
resolution to impeach the President of India has to be passed by a two-thirds majority of the total
members of the house of the Parliament, which originates such a motion. It is then sent to the
other house. The other house investigates the charges that have been made. During this process,
the President has the right to defend himself/herself through an authorized counsel. If the second
house also approves the charges made by two-thirds majority again, the President stands
impeached and has to vacate his/her office.

The President of India is assisted in his duties by the Vice President. The Vice President is
elected by the members of an electoral college consisting of members of both Houses of
Parliament, that is the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, in accordance with the system of
proportional representation, by means of a single transferable vote. He holds the office for five
years, and can be reelected. The Vice President has to temporarily assume the role of President in
the event of the death, resignation, or removal of the President, until a new President is chosen
by the electoral college. The Vice President of India may also act temporarily as President,
during the absence or illness of the President. The Vice President of India is also the Ex-officio
Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. Mohammad Hamid Ansari is the present Vice President of India.

Executive, Legislature and Judiciary

With the Union Government and State Governments wrest the executive power, while the
legislative power is vested on the Union Government and the two houses of Indian Parliament-
the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha- and also the State Government and two state legislatures-
Vidhan Sabha and Vidhan Parishad. However, here it deserves a mention that only five of India's
28 states have Vidhan Parishad or Legislative Council, which is also known as the upper house
of state legislatures, along with the Vidhan Sabha. The rest of the states don't have bicameral
legislatures, and only have Vidhan Sabha or Legislative Assembly. Each state also has a
Governor, who is formally appointed by the President of India. The role of the Governor is
somewhat similar to that of President in the national level; he is a titular head of the state in
normal circumstances, but can exercise some powers when directed by the Union Government.

The judiciary is the third arm of the governance, which is independent of the executive and
legislature. The Constitution has designated the Supreme Court, High Court and the lower courts
the authority to resolve disputes among people, and also disputes between people and the
government. The Constitution, through its articles relating to the judicial system, provides a way
to question the laws of the government, if the common man finds the laws as unsuitable for any
community in India.

The Constitution of India has distributed legislative powers between Parliament and State
Legislatures as per the lists of entries in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The
Constitution of India has demarcated the subjects under which each tier of the government will
have executive and legislative powers. Some subjects fall under the Union List, some under the
State List, while some subjects fall under the category of Concurrent List. The Union
Government has the powers to enact laws on subjects under the Union List of the Constitution,
while the State Governments have the powers to enact laws on subjects that fall under the
purview of the State List. Both the Central as well as the State Governments can enact laws on
subjects under the Concurrent List, however, in case of conflict between the two legislations, the
laws enacted by the Union Government under the Concurrent List overrides the laws enacted by
the State Government.
(i) Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha
Parliament is the legislative arm of the Union Government. India's bicameral Parliament consists
of two houses; Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. Lok Sabha is the lower house of the Parliament and
it comprises of the elected representatives of the people. They come to Lok Sabha after winning
their elections, in which eligible electorates(any Indian citizen of 18 years and above, who is not
debarred by law is entitled to vote) cast their votes through the system of universal adult
franchise. Each Lok Sabha is constituted for a five year term, after which it is automatically
dissolved, unless extended by a Proclamation of Emergency. In such a case, its term may be
extended with one year increments. Unless it experiences premature dissolution, a given Lok
Sabha is expected to run a five year term. From independence to 2007, India has seen 14 Lok
Sabha terms.

According to the Constitution of India, Lok Sabha can have 552 members, with 530 members
representing states of India, and 20 members representing the Union Territories. Two members
are represented by the Anglo-Indian community if the President feels the community doesn't
have adequate representation in the house. In fact, this is one of the few 'real' powers of the
President that is ordained by the Constitution of India. The membership of Lok Sabha is
distributed among the states and union territories so as to ensure proper representation of the
population of the states and union territories. The members of the Lok Sabha elects a Speaker of
the house, who is responsible for the conducting of business, and maintaining the decorum of the
house, and also a Deputy Speaker. The later preside over the proceedings in the absence of the
Speaker.

Rajya Sabha or the Council of States is the upper house of the Parliament. Its members are not
directly elected by people. Members of the Rajya Sabha from each state are elected by the
members of the State Legislature or the Legislative Assembly of that state by means of
proportional representation, through the single transferable vote system. The representatives of
the Union Territories for the Rajya Sabha are chosen in such manner as may be decided or
prescribed by the Parliament from time to time.

According to the Constitution, Rajya Sabha can have maximum 250 members, that is 238
members representing the states, and 12 members nominated by the President, for their expertise
in specific fields of art, literature, science, and social services. Rajya Sabha is a permanent body
and is not subject to dissolution. However, one third of the members retire every second year,
and are replaced by newly elected members. Each member is elected for a term of six years,
however like Lok Sabha, the members can be reelected.

Though both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha share the union legislative powers, and have the right
to initiate, pass and amend ordinary bills of law, but Lok Sabha has an edge over the upper house
of the Parliament. Under the Constitution, the Council of Ministers are only accountable to the
Lok Sabha and not Rajya Sabha, and money bills can only be introduced in Lok Sabha. Rajya
Sabha can neither delay the money bills for more than fourteen days, nor can amend it without
the consent of the Lok Sabha. If it does so, the bill will be deemed to be passed by both houses of
the Parliament, and will be send to the President for formal assent. Moreover, if there is a
conflict in legislation, which cannot be resolved even by the joint committee of both houses, it is
then passed to the joint session of the Parliament, where eventually Lok Sabha's views would
generally prevail as it has more than twice the numbers than that of the Rajya Sabha.

(ii) Vidhan Sabha and Vidhan Parishad

State Legislatures are the legislative arm of the State Governments, which comprise of Vidhan
Sabha and Vidhan Parishad (in case of five states only). Presently only Uttar Pradesh, Bihar,
Karnataka, Maharashtra and Jammu & Kashmir have Vidhan Parishads, which is again a
permanent house and can't be dissolved. Every member of Legislative Council serves a term of
six years. Like Lok Sabha, the members of Vidhan Sabha or the Legislative Assembly are also
directly elected by the people of their respective states. The members of Vidhan Sabha also elect
a Speaker and a Deputy Speaker, whose roles are similar to that of the Speaker and Deputy
Speaker in Lok Sabha.

The Vidhan Sabha shares state legislative powers with the Vidhan Parishad(wherever it is there),
however in case of money bills Vidhan Sabha has the absolute power. In case of conflicts in state
legislations, Vidhan Sabha would generally prevail over Vidhan Parishad, by the sheer strength
of its numbers. According to the Constitution, Vidhan Sabha can have up to 500 members,
whereas the size of the Vidhan Parishad cannot exceed more than one-third of the membership of
the given state's Vidhan Sabha. Moreover, a motion of no confidence against the state
government can only be introduced in the Vidhan Sabha. If it is passed by a majority vote, then
the Chief Minister and his Council of Ministers must collectively resign, and regarding this
Vidhan Parishad's views doesn't have any constitutional muscle.

The Power of Amendment

Though the Constitution of India lays down the framework on which Indian polity is supposed to
run, the Parliament can amend the Constitution if it feels the need to do so. The amendments can
be done in various ways. Firstly it can be done through a simple majority of the Parliament,
which entails a simple majority of members of the houses present and voting before sending for
the President's assent. Amendments can also be done through a special majority of the
Parliament, where two conditions apply. The said bill should be passed by at least two-thirds of
the members of each house of the Parliament present and voting. Furthermore, the members
present and voting in each house should not be less than half the total membership in the house.
Thirdly the Constitution can also be amended through a ratification of at least half of the state
legislatures by special majority, after it has been passed through a special majority in the
Parliament.

All amendments need an assent by the President, which normally is nothing more than a
formality. All these methods of amendments pertain to specific articles of the Constitution. For
amending different articles of the Constitution, different methods of amendments are employed.
Till today, the Constitution has seen 94 amendments, which clearly shows the prevalence of
legislature over other branches of Indian Constitution.

Decentralized, Multi-party Democracy

Over the last decade, the governance in India has become somewhat decentralized and has
assumed a local face, with the Panchyati Raj System gaining in currency. The 73rd Amendment
of the Constitution in 1993 gave constitutional sanctity to the Panchayat Raj institutions. The Act
aims to provide a three-tier system of Panchayati Raj for all states having population of over 2
million. They are to hold Panchayat elections regularly every five years, to provide reservation of
seats for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and women in Panchayats, to appoint State Finance
Commission for making recommendations regarding the financial powers of the Panchayats, and
to constitute District Planning Committee for chalking out the draft development plan for the
district.

As stated before, Indian polity has a multi-party system with several national and state parties,
other recognised parties represented in the Lok Sabha, and also registered unrecognised parties.
In Indian politics, state level regional parties have lots of say. Only those parties which are
politically recognised in four or more states can be accorded the status of national parties by the
Election Commission of India. At present there are six national parties in India. They are the
Indian National Congress(INC), led by Sonia Gandhi, the Nationalist Congress Party(NCP), led
by Sharad Pawar, the Communist Party of India(CPI), led by A.B.Burdan, the Communist Party
of India(Marxist) or CPI(M), led by Prakash Karat, the Bharatiya Janata Party(BJP), led by
Rajnath Singh and the Bahujan Samaj Party(BSP), led by Mayawati. Parties that have received
certain amount of votes or seats in a state can be recognized as a state party by the Election
Commission. Presently we are having a coalition government. The UPA or United Progressive
Alliance is the name of this coalition, which is led by the Indian National Congress
Government of India
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

India

This article is part of the series:

Politics and government of
India
Union Government[show]

Constitution of India
Fundamental Rights

Executive

President Prime Minister

Vice President The Cabinet

Parliament

Rajya Sabha Lok Sabha

The Chairman   The Speaker

Judiciary
Supreme Court of India
Chief Justice of India
High Courts
 District Courts
Elections[show]

Election Commission
Chief Election Commissioner

Political Parties[show]

National Parties
State Parties

National Coalitions
Left Front
National Democratic Alliance
United Progressive Alliance
Local & State Govt.[show]

Governor
State Legislature
Vidhan Sabha
Vidhan Parishad
Panchayat
Gram panchayat
Panchayat samiti
Zilla Parishad

Other countries ·  Politics Portal

Government of India Portal
 view • talk • edit 

The Government of India, officially known as the Union Government and also known as the
Central Government, was established by the Constitution of India, and is the governing
authority of a union of 28 states and seven union territories, collectively called the Republic of
India. It is seated in New Delhi, the capital of India.

The government comprises three branches: the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. The
executive branch headed by the President, who is the Head of State and exercises his or her
power directly or through officers subordinate to him[1]. The Legislative branch or the Parliament
consists of the lower house, the Lok Sabha, and the upper house, the Rajya Sabha, as well as the
president. The Judicial branch has the Supreme Court at its apex, 21 High Courts, and numerous
civil, criminal and family courts at the district level.
The basic civil and criminal laws governing the citizens of India are set down in major
parliamentary legislation, such as the Civil Procedure Code, the Indian Penal Code, and the
Criminal Procedure Code. The union and individual state governments consist of executive,
legislative and judicial branches. The legal system as applicable to the federal and individual
state governments is based on the English Common and Statutory Law. India accepts
International Court of Justice jurisdiction with several reservations. By the 73rd and 74th
amendments to the constitution, the Panchayat Raj system has been institutionalised for local
governance.

Contents
[hide]

 1 Type of government
o 1.1 Sovereign
o 1.2 Socialist
o 1.3 Secular
o 1.4 Democratic
o 1.5 Republic
 2 Parliamentary government
o 2.1 Individual responsibility
o 2.2 Collective responsibility
 3 Judicial branch
o 3.1 National judiciary
 4 Reform
o 4.1 Corruption
o 4.2 Inefficiency
o 4.3 Spending priorities
o 4.4 Deficits
 5 Finance
o 5.1 Taxation
o 5.2 General budget
 6 References
 7 External links
 8 Further reading

[edit] Type of government

The Preamble lays down the type of government that India has adopted - Sovereign, Socialist,
Secular, Democratic, Republic.
[edit] Sovereign

The word sovereign means supreme or independent nation. India is internally and externally
sovereign - externally free from the control of any foreign power and internally, it has a free
government which is directly elected by the people and makes laws that govern the people.

[edit] Socialist

The word socialist was added to the Preamble by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976. It implies
social and economic equality for all its citizens. There will be no discrimination on the basis of
caste, colour, creed, sex, religion or language. All citizens will be given equal social status and
opportunities for economic enhancement. The term 'socialism' has little to do with economic
socialism, as prevalent in Communist countries. It implies a cultural and humanistic definition
alone.

India has adopted a mixed economic model, and the government has framed many laws to
achieve the goal of socialism, such as Abolition of Untouchability and Zamindari Act, Equal
Wages Act and Child Labour Prohibition Act.

[edit] Secular

The word secular was inserted into the Preamble by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976. It implies
equality of all religions and religious tolerance. India does not have any official state religion.
Every person has the right to preach, practice and propagate any religion of their own choice.
The government does not favour or discriminate any religion. It treats all religions with equal
respect. All citizens, irrespective of their religious beliefs are equal in the eyes of law. No
religious instruction is imparted in government or government - aided schools.

[edit] Democratic

The government of India is elected democratically. Eligible voters may vote at the polling station
in his/her constituency at which he /she is registered on presentation of the voter's identity card
or other suitable identification.Use of electronic voting machines has simplified the process of
voting and counting.[citation needed] 84 out of 543 seats in parliament are reserved to various social
groups and tribes,while the large majority are open and unrestricted. .[clarification needed] In local
elections, 33% of the seats are reserved for women. There is also a proposal to give out 33%
seats in all elections to woman candidates, The ruling UPA and main opposition parties BJP and
Left parties came to an agreement and the bill has been tabled in the Rajya Sabha in March 2010
and was passed by 190 against 1 votes.

The Election Commission of India is responsible for ensuring free and fair elections. It is
currently Federal Republic.
[edit] Republic

Republic meaning the Rule of Law.To prevent the tyranny of majority all rules have to respect
the constitution.Any rule which violates fundamental rights are unconstitutional and hence void.
The President of India is elected head of the republic by an electoral college indirectly for a term
of five years.

[edit] Parliamentary government

Sansad Bhavan

India has a parliamentary system of government based largely on that of the United Kingdom
(Westminster system). However, eminent scholars including the first President Dr Rajendra
Prasad have raised the question "how far we are entitled to invoke and incorporate into our
written Constitution by interpretation the conventions of the British Constitution".[2]

The legislature is the Parliament. It is bicameral, consisting of two houses: the directly-elected
545-member Lok Sabha ("House of the People"), the lower house, and the 250-member
indirectly-elected and appointed Rajya Sabha ("Council of States"), the upper house. The
parliament enjoys parliamentary supremacy.

The executive power is vested on mainly the President of India by Article 53(1) of the
constitution. The President enjoys all constitutional powers and exercises them directly or
through officers subordinate to him as per the aforesaid Article 53(1).The President is to act in
accordance with aid and advise tendered by the head of government (Prime Minister of India)
and his or her Council of Ministers (the cabinet) as described in Article 74 (Constitution of
India).

All the members of the Council of Ministers as well as the Prime Minister are members of
Parliament. If they are not, they must be elected within a period of six months from the time they
assume their respective office. The Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers are responsible
to the Lok Sabha, individually as well as collectively.
[edit] Individual responsibility

Every individual minister is in charge of a specific ministry or ministries (or specific other
portfolio). He is responsible for any act of failure in all the policies relating to his department. In
case of any lapse, he himself is individually responsible to the Parliament. If a vote of no
confidence is passed against the individual minister, he has to resign. Individual responsibility
can amount to collective responsibility. Therefore, the Prime Minister, in order to save his
government, can ask for the resignation of such a minister and the people have a say.

[edit] Collective responsibility

The Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers are jointly accountable to the Lok Sabha. If
there is a policy failure or lapse on the part of the government, all the members of the council are
jointly responsible. If a vote of no confidence is passed against the government, then all the
ministers headed by the Prime Minister have to resign.

[edit] Judicial branch

Bombay High Court.

India's independent judicial system began under the British, and its concepts and procedures
resemble those of Anglo-Saxon countries. The Supreme Court of India consists of a Chief Justice
and 30 associate justices, all appointed by the President on the advice of the Chief Justice of
India. In the 1960s, India moved away from using juries for most trials, finding them to be
corrupt and ineffective, instead almost all trials are conducted by judges.

Unlike its US counterpart, the Indian justice system consists of a unitary system at both state and
federal level. The judiciary consists of the Supreme Court of India, High Courts at the state
level, and District and Session Courts at the district level.

[edit] National judiciary

Main article: Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court of India has original, appellate and advisory jurisdiction. Its exclusive
original jurisdiction extends to any dispute between the Government of India and one or more
states, or between the Government of India and any state or states on one side and one or more
states on the other, or between two or more states, if and insofar as the dispute involves any
question (whether of law or of fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.
In addition, Article 32 of the Indian Constitution gives an extensive original jurisdiction to the
Supreme Court in regard to enforcement of Fundamental Rights. It is empowered to issue
directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari to enforce them. The Supreme Court has been
conferred with power to direct transfer of any civil or criminal case from one State High Court to
another State High Court, or from a court subordinate to another State High Court.

Public Interest Litigation(PIL) : Although the proceedings in the Supreme Court arise out of
the judgments or orders made by the Subordinate Courts, of late the Supreme Court has started
entertaining matters in which interest of the public at large is involved, and the Court may be
moved by any individual or group of persons either by filing a Writ Petition at the Filing Counter
of the Court, or by addressing a letter to Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India highlighting the
question of public importance for invoking this jurisdiction.

Ref:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_India
 India's Politics
A federal republic, the Republic of India integrates the United Kingdom's (as well as
other democratic countries, such as the United States) constitutional system and has a
constitution which governs it.  

The government's power can be divided into three branches: executive, judiciary and
parliament.  As with the United States, India is comprised of individual states.  India's
central government has authority over these states and even has the authority to
change the boundaries of the states.

Learn more of India's political system and how it works on political news and events
 

 Federal System  Political System

 President  Judicial System
 Vice-President  Supreme Court
 Council of Ministers  High Courts
 Rajya Sabha  Lok Adalat
 Lok Sabha  Legislative Relations Between the
 State Governments Union and States
 Federal System

India, a union of states, is a Sovereign, Secular, Democratic Republic with a

Parliamentary system of Government. The Indian polity is governed in terms of the
Constitution, which was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on 26 November 1949
and came into force on 26 November 1950. 

The President is the constitutional head of Executive of the Union. Real executive
power vests in a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister as head. Article 74(1) of
the Constitution provides that there shall be a Council of Ministers headed by the
Prime Minister to aid and advise the President who shall, in exercise of his functions,
act in accordance with such advice. The Council of Ministers is collectively
responsible to the Lok Sabha, the House of the People.

In the states, the Governor, as the representative of the President, is the head of
Executive, but real executive power rests with the Chief Minister who heads the
Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers of a state is collectively responsible to
the elected legislative assembly of the state. 

The Constitution governs the sharing of legislative power between Parliament and
the State Legislatures, and provides for the vesting of residual powers in Parliament.
The power to amend the Constitution also vests in Parliament. 

The Union Executive consists of the President, the Vice-President and Council of
Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President.  

President

The President is elected by members of an Electoral College consisting of elected

members of both Houses of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies of the states, with
suitable weightage given to each vote. His term of office is five years. 

Among other powers, the President can proclaim an emergency in the country if he is
satisfied that the security of the country or of any part of its territory is threatened
whether by war or external agression or armed rebellion. When there is a failure of
the constitutional machinery in a state, he can assume to himself all or any of the
functions of the government of that state.

Vice-President
The Vice-President is elected by the members of an electoral college consisting of
members of both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the system of proportional
representation by means of a single transferable vote. He holds office for five years.
The Vice-President is Ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. 

Back to Top

Council of Ministers

The Council of Ministers comprises Cabinet Ministers, Minister of States

(independent charge or otherwise) and Deputy Ministers. Prime Minister
communicates all decisions of the Council of Ministers relating to administration of
affairs of the Union and proposals for legislation to the President. Generally, each
department has an officer designated as secretary to the Government of India to
advise Ministers on policy matters and general administration. The Cabinet
Secretariat has an important coordinating role in decision making at highest level and
operates under direction of Prime Minister. 

The Legislative Arm of the Union, called Parliament, consists of the President, Rajya
Sabha and Lok Sabha. All legislation requires consent of both houses of parliament.
However, in case of money bills, the will of the Lok Sabha always prevails.

Back to Top

Rajya Sabha

The Rajya Sabha consists of 245 members. Of these, 233 represent states and
union territories and 12 members are nominated by the President. Elections to the
Rajya Sabha are indirect; members are elected by the elected members of
Legislative Assemblies of the concerned states. The Rajya Sabha is not subject to
dissolution, one third of its members retire every second year.

Back to Top

Lok Sabha

The Lok Sabha is composed of representatives of the people chosen by direct

election on the basis of universal adult suffrage. As of today, the Lok Sabha consists
of 545 members with two members nominated by the President to represent the
Anglo-Indian Community. Unless dissolved under unusual circumstances, the term of
the Lok Sabha is five years. 

Back to Top

State Governments

The system of government in states closely resembles that of the Union. There are
25 states and seven Union territories in the country. 

Union Territories are administered by the President through an Administrator

appointed by him. Till 1 February 1992, the Union Territory of Delhi was governed by
the Central government through an Administrator appointed by the President of India.
Through a Constitutional amendment in Parliament, the Union Territory of Delhi is
now called the National Capital Territory of Delhi from 1 February 1992. General
elections to the Legislative assembly of the National Capital Territory were held in
November 1993. 

Back to Top

Political System

A recognised political party has been classified as a National Party or a State Party.
If a political party is recognised in four or more states, it is considered as a National
Party.

The Congress, Bharatiya Janata Party, Janata Dal, Communist Party of India and
Communist Party of India (Marxist) are the prominent National Parties in the Country.
Telugu Desam in Andhra Pradesh, Asom Gana Parishad in Assam, Jharkhand Mukti
Morcha in Bihar, Maharashtrwad Gomantak Party in Goa, National Conference in
Jammu and Kashmir, Muslim League in Kerala, Shiv Sena in Maharashtra, Akali Dal
in Punjab, All-India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Dravida Munnetra
Kazhagam in Tamil Nadu, Bahujan Samaj Party and Samajwadi Party in Uttar
Pradesh and All-India Forward Block in West Bengal are the prominent state parties.

Eleven Lok Sabhas have been constituted so far. Except for the short-lived Sixth and
Ninth Lok Sabha, the Congress Party ruled the country. The Sixth Lok Sabha
functioned for about two years and four months and the Ninth Lok Sabha functioned
for one year and two months. 

Back to Top

Judicial System

The Supreme Court is the apex court in the country. The High Court stands at the
head of the state's judicial administration. Each state is divided into judicial districts
presided over by a district and sessions judge, who is the highest judicial authority in
a district. Below him, there are courts of civil jurisdiction, known in different states as
munsifs, sub-judges, civil judges and the like. Similarly, criminal judiciary comprises
chief judicial magistrate and judicial magistrates of first and second class. 

Back to Top

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has original, appellate and advisory jurisdiction. Its exclusive
original jurisdiction extends to all disputes between the Union and one or more states
or between two or more states. The Constitution gives an extensive original
jurisdiction to the Supreme Court to enforce Fundamental Rights. 

Appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked by a certificate of the

High Court concerned or by special leave granted by the Supreme Court in respect of
any judgement, decree or final order of a High Court in cases both civil and criminal,
involving substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the constitution. The
President may consult the Supreme Court on any question of fact or law of public
importance.

The Supreme Court of India comprises of the Chief Justice and not more than 25
other Judges appointed by the President. Judges hold office till 65 years of age. 

Back to Top

High Courts

There are 18 High Courts in the country, three having jurisdiction over more than one
state. Bombay High Court has the jurisdiction over Maharashtra, Goa, Dadra and
Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu. Guwahati High Court, which was earlier known as
Assam High Court, has the jurisdiction over Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland,
Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh. Punjab and Haryana High Court has the
jurisdiction over Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh. 

Among the Union Territories, Delhi alone has had a High Court of its own. The other
six Union Territories come under jurisdiction of different state High Courts. 

The Chief Justice of a High Court is appointed by the President in consultation with
the Chief Justice of India and the Governor of the state. Each High Court has powers
of superintendence over all courts within its jurisdiction. High Court judges retire at
the age of 62. 

The jurisdiction as well as the laws administered by a High Court can be altered both
by the Union and State Legislatures. Certain High Courts, like those at Bombay,
Calcutta and Madras, have original and appellate jurisdictions. Under the original
jurisdiction suits, where the subject matter is valued at Rs.25,000 or more, can be
filed directly in the High Court. Most High Courts have only appellate jurisdiction. 

Back to Top

Lok Adalat

Lok Adalats are voluntary agencies for resolution of disputes through conciliatory
method. 

Legislative Relations Between the Union and States

Under the Constitution, Parliament has the power to make laws for the whole of or
any part of the territory of India. The State Legislatures have the power to make laws
for the States. The subjects on which legislation can be enacted are specified in the
Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. 

Parliament has the exclusive right to legislate in respect of items appearing in List I,
called the "Union List''. This list includes area such as defense, foreign affairs,
currency, income tax, excise duty, railways, shipping, posts and telegraphs, etc.

State Legislatures have the exclusive power to make laws in relation to items
appearing in List II called the "State List''. This includes items like public order, police,
 public health, communications, agriculture, lotteries, taxes on entertainment and
wealth, sales tax and octroi, etc. 

Both Parliament and the State Legislatures have the power to legislate in items
appearing in List III of the Constitution which is known as "Concurrent List''. This list
includes items like electricity, newspapers, criminal law, marriage and divorce, stamp
duties, trade unions, price controls, etc.
Ref:- http://www.asianinfo.org/asianinfo/india/politics.htm