A COMPARITIVE STUDY OF PRESIDENTIAL AND

PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM

CONSTITUTION II

Submitted to:

Prof. Dr. Anirudh Prasad

Submitted by:

Abhishek Tiwari

B.A., LL.B.

ROLL NO. 2104

SEMESTER VI

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

January 2022
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The researcher would like to express his gratitude and regards to his guide and companion Prof. Dr.
Anirudh Prasad for his exemplary monitoring, encouragement throughout the course of this project.
His blessings and guidance helped to end the long journey of this project. The researcher would
like to acknowledge the consistent prompts of my parents that have led to the conclusion of this
project in adequate time. I would have been in the hands of laziness and would have resulted into
undue delay.

In the end, it is also to be considered the support of all the technical and non-technical and other
staffs for providing me an atmosphere to think and to work on this project.

Thankyou
Abhishek Tiwari
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the work presented for the B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) course with the name “A
COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN PRESIDENTIAL AND PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM”
submitted at Chanakya National Law University, Patna is an authentic compilation and research
work carried under the supervision Prof. Dr. Anirudh Prasad This project has not been submitted
elsewhere for any degree, diploma or publication. I take full responsibility for the content and its
sources of this project.

Abhishek Tiwari

Roll No. 2104

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................................................................................. 2
DECLARATION ............................................................................................................................ 3
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ...................................................................................................... 5
AIMS AND OBJECTIVE ........................................................................................................... 5
HYPOTHESIS ............................................................................................................................. 5
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 5
LIMITATION OF STUDY ......................................................................................................... 5
MODE OF CITATION ............................................................................................................... 5
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 6
2. FORMS OF GOVERNMENT................................................................................................. 8
THE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM ............................................................................................. 8
NATURE OF PARLIAMENTARY FORM OF GOVERNMENT: .............................................. 8
FEATURES OF PARLIAMENTARY FORM OF GOVERNMENT............................................ 9
BENEFITS OF THE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT: ............................. 11
DISADVANTAGES OF THE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT: .............. 12
THE PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM ................................................................................................. 13
FEATURES AND MERITS OF PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM: .................................................... 13
DISADVANTAGES OF THE PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM: ....................................................... 14
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PARLIAMENTARY AND PRESIDENTIAL FORMS OF
GOVERNMENT........................................................................................................................... 15
CHAPTER IV CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 19
BIBLIOGRAPHY: ........................................................................................................................ 21
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is to compare the two important systems of government running in the
current world: - Parliamentary and Presidential.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVE

1. To understand the peculiarities of both the Parliamentary and Presidential form of

government.
2. To compare both the systems and figure out the pros and cons of both.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What is Parliamentary system?

2. What is Presidential system?
3. What are the points of difference between the two and which one is the best for our
country?

HYPOTHESIS

Parliamentary system of government which is existent in our country is best for us.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The researcher has used a doctrinal method for doing this research project work. The researcher
has relied on various books and online databases, documents etc.

LIMITATION OF STUDY

Researcher has faced time limitations in completion of the project.

MODE OF CITATION

The researcher has followed a bluebook citation mode of citation throughout the course of this
project
 1. INTRODUCTION

Presidential and Parliamentary forms of Government are two different systems of Government,
which are available in all countries of the world. These two systems are for good governance.
System of Government in every country is functioning with either Presidential or Parliamentary
form of Govt. Historically these two systems of Government is available in United States of
America and United Kingdom. The countries, remained under colonial system, had adopted the
system left by their masters except of some, for example USA adopted Presidential form of
Government after getting Independence from UK. Similarly, Nigeria also adopted the
Presidential form of Government after getting independence from France. Like this, Pakistan and
India had also adopted Parliamentary form of Government after getting independence from
United Kingdom, which was there at that time.1

1. In the Parliamentary form of government, there are two heads. One is a nominal head while
another is the real head. For example, in India, the President is the nominal head while the
Prime Minister is the real head. The President of India is the head of state while the Prime
Minister is the head of government. But in the Presidential form of government, there is only
one head. The President of America is the head of state as well as the head of government.

2. In the Parliamentary system, the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister is
responsible to the legislature. But in the Presidential type, the President and his ministers are
not responsible to the legislature.

3. In the Parliamentary type, the Council of Ministers will lose office if it loses the vote of
confidence / no confidence. But in the Presidential type, the President cannot be ousted from
power by a vote of no-confidence. He can be removed from office though impeachment
which is much more difficult than the vote of confidence/no confidence.

4. In the Parliamentary system, the government does not enjoy a fixed tenure. “For example, in
India the government can stay in power for five years. But any time during this period, the

1
Definition according to – http://www.merriam-webster.com, Accessed on seen on 22/02/2022
 government can be removed from power through a vote of no-confidence. In the Presidential
system, the President has generally a fixed tenure because it is not easy to impeach him.

5. There is not strict separation of powers in the Parliamentary type. The ministers are also
members of the legislature. But, in the Presidential type, the principle of separation of powers
is strictly followed. In the US, the President and his Ministers (Secretaries) are not members
of the Congress.

6. In the Parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is not fully free to choose his ministers. He
has to choose them from among the members of Parliament. But in the Presidential system,
the President enjoys much more freedom in selecting his ministers. He selects them from a
much wider field taking into account their experience and expertise.

7. At the time of crisis, the Presidential executive is more successful in taking prompt and bold
decisions than the Parliamentary government.

8. The Presidential system of government provides more political stability than the
Parliamentary form of government.

9. As the government in the parliamentary system is responsible to the Parliament, it is more

democratic and respectful of public opinion than the Presidential executive which is not
responsible to the legislature
 2. FORMS OF GOVERNMENT

THE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM

NATURE OF PARLIAMENTARY FORM OF GOVERNMENT 2:

1. Legislative Supremacy: In India there is only constitutional supremacy, where every

authority derives its power from the constitution. British parliament is supreme and can do
everything, changing a man into women and vice versa
2. Nominal executive and real executive: The President and the King is nominal executive;
real executive is the P.M along with council of ministers.
3. Legislature is the master, executive is the sub-ordinate: Majority party leader will be P.M,
the person who retains the maximum confidence of the party.
4. The government is answerable, accountable and responsible to the legislature:

Cabinet consists of 20-25, they are responsible for taking decision on policy matters, based on
the availability of prime minister. Meetings take place after every 15 days or 1 month. Council of
ministers is different and it meets once in a year. The question raised by members of opposition
or treasury benches they pose questions to the government and ask for answers. If they fail to
give answer then uproar is there in the parliament to outcast them. Executive is puppet in the
hands of legislature

5. Unstable government:

House is elected for 5 years and Lok Sabha can be dissolved by prime minister and council for
ministers.

2
Constitution of India by J N Pandey,51 st edition
FEATURES OF PARLIAMENTARY FORM OF GOVERNMENT

There are a number of features of this system of democracy. Some of them are as follows 3:

1. Nominal Head of the State: Under this form of government, the head of the state i.e. the
President in Indian context is titular, while the Prime Minister is the Real head. This implies that
the person holding the Presidential post may have great stature but he does not exercise his
power independently. Constitutionally, all the powers belong to him and every affair of the State
runs under his name and assent as articulated in Article 77 of our Constitution, but those powers
are actually exercised by the “Council of Ministers” headed by the Prime Minister who is the
head of the Government. This has been provided by the Constitution under Article 74. Thus,
there exist two heads of the executive, a real and a nominal head. The president has to act
according to the advice of the Council of Ministers or else it might be set aside.

2. Close Nexus between the Executive and Legislature: The Constitution-makers adopted a
partial separation of powers between the executive and legislature so that they are not totally
independent of each other. Therefore, under this system the executive and the legislature have a
close collaboration with each other. This is done by choosing the Council of Ministers from the
legislature, which involves 15% of the strength of the House of the People. The President
summons the legislature and gives his consent to the bills that are initiated and passed by the
legislature to make them Acts.

3. Accountability of the Executive4: The executives have to perform all those residuary
functions of the government which involve the implementation and administration of various
policies & Acts and orders determined by the legislature and ordered by the judiciary
respectively. In the Parliamentary system, the executive is responsible and accountable to the
legislature for all its actions since it has the right to seek detailed information about the working

3
Devesh Kapur And Pratap Bhanu Mehta, The Indian Parliament as An Institution of Accountability.

4
Devesh Kapur And Pratap Bhanu Mehta, The Indian Parliament as An Institution of Accountability, United
Nations Research Institute for Social Development, January 2006
of the Ministers. The Council of Ministers remain in office as long as they enjoy the support and
confidence of the Lok Sabha, i.e., the House of the People.

4. Collective Responsibility: The Council of Ministers has Collective Responsibility towards

each other which mean that the council shares the responsibility for the lapses of each and every
minister. Moreover, the individual minister cannot differ from the decision of the council,
particularly the Cabinet. Thus, in order to oppose the policy or decisions of the cabinet, the
minister has to resign from the council and then refute it on the floors of the legislature.
Therefore, the ministers “swim and sink together”.

Leadership of the Prime Minister: J. Laski said, “Prime Minister is central to formation,
central to growth and central to the death of the Council of Ministers.” Since he is the Head
of the Government and also the Real head of the State, the President appoints and distributes
portfolios among the members of the Council of Ministers upon the recommendations of the
Prime Minister as enunciated by Article 75 of the Indian Constitution. The Prime Minister has
the power to dismiss any minister any time without assigning any reason. Also, his resignation
leads to the resignation of the entire Council of Ministers. He also serves as a “link or pivot”
between the Council and the President by conveying the decisions taken by the council after
every meeting.

The above are the essential features of the Parliamentary system of government in India.
Therefore, it can be said that this form of democracy rests on the “Body of representatives or
Political Parties” elected by the people of the country. The Indian Constitution has various
provisions facilitating the parliamentary system. It has also been held by the Supreme Court of
our country that the Parliamentary system forms the basic structure of our constitution and
therefore, many legal problems might arise if any switch from the present system is made.
BENEFITS OF THE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT:

The parliamentary form of government offers the following benefits owing to its features:

1. Smooth Functioning- The close link between the executive and the legislature avoids any
kind of conflict between the two organs of the government. This also ensures as working of both
of them in a complementary way to each other. In India, there is a concept of partial separation
of powers which accounts for freedom accompanied with responsibility and accountability.
Therefore, the two organs can function without any interference if they work as per the interest
of the masses.

2.Quick Decision Making- If the ruling party enjoys majority in the legislature, then the
executive can take decisions quickly and implement them without any hindrance and fear of
being let down on the floor of the House. This can be very helpful in case of constructive
decision making and overcoming the problems of procedural delays.

3. Flexible System- This form of government is highly adaptive in nature to the changing
situations. An example of benefit of a flexible system can be seen in case of grave emergency,
wherein the leadership can be changed without any harassment and objections. This will enable
the government to tackle the situation efficiently as was seen in as it happened during World War
II in England when Mr. Chamberlain made way for Mr. Winston Churchill to handle the
War. Even the elections can be delayed till normality is restored in the country.

4. Open Administration- The executive remains vigilant and always tries to administer properly
and effectively in order to secure its electoral prospects and confidence of the Parliament. The
Parliament controls the executive, particularly the Cabinet in two ways:

5. Need of Confidence by the Government- Since by a motion of “No Confidence” against the
government would make the Prime Minister resign from his office, leading to the dissolution of
the Council of Ministers as a whole.

6. Financial Powers of the Parliament- The Government has to seek for financial grants by the
Parliament to implement its policies and for the purpose of administration. The Parliament has
the power to grant or refuse to grant the requested funds, thereby controlling the executive. The
House also has to control the expenditure made out of granted funds.

This control over the executive keeps it on its toes and ensures that there is no misuse of powers
and funds. The more mistake the executive commits, the less popular it gets and more
confrontation by the opposition and hence it becomes vulnerable to the restraint of funds and
collapse of the government.

DISADVANTAGES OF THE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT:

There is no system which can be completely foolproof. Irrespective to the soundness of this
system, there are certain flaws of this system which are as follows:

1. Absolute Majority- In case there is absolute majority enjoyed by the government in the
legislature, then the executive may become “virtually dictatorial”[xi]. It may become whimsical
and corrupt in using its powers without caring about the liberty and rights of the people.

2. Politicization of Administration- The executive is bound to take political considerations into

account before implementing any policy and decision. This can be said for the opposition too as
it may oppose the government merely for the sake of politics rather than offering constructive
criticism after looking into the working of the government and interest of the people. This may
simply fail the purpose of democracy as people suffer at the cost of political considerations and
actions.

3. Unsuitable for Multi-party system- In a country like India where there are multiple parties
contesting elections, there is no absolute majority to one party and this leads to the formation of a
coalition government which is highly unstable and chaotic. The leader is also chosen after
political considerations and there is no autonomy and efficiency in the government. Dual party
system is the essence of parliamentary system as in Great Britain. India has witnessed a high
level of political instability due to the presence of numerous parties and this makes the system
flawed, chaotic and confused.
4. Emergencies- Professor Dicey has pointed out that the Parliamentary system fails to respond
properly to the critical situations since the Prime Minister has to consider the party and every
political outcome before coming to a decision. Also, the members of the Parliament are not
always unanimous to a particular decision. This may make the situation even worse and
uncontrollable.

5. Mal-administration- Since the government is elected from the social field, having no
administrative training, background or skill, the efficiency of the system depends largely on the
civil servants for proper formulation and implementation of the policies. Thus, the bureaucrats
assume huge importance in the system and they often misuse their position leading to
maladministration.

Therefore, we see that within the enlisted benefits of the parliamentary system, there are flaws
and lacuna too. This makes the system questionable and calls for a consideration over another
form of democracy in India, i.e., Presidential System of Government.

THE PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM

The two forms of government are essentially different from each other. Briefly enlisting the
following:

FEATURES AND MERITS OF PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM5:

1. President is the Real Head- The President is both the head of the State as well as of the
Government. This enables him to take bold and quick decisions without any interference of the
ministers. They may advise him, but the President is not bound to follow them and the Ministers have
to implement the decisions taken. This adds to the efficiency of the system in times
of emergencies by taking prompt and bold decisions. This concentration of executive power and
control makes the President to handle any situation effectively. He has no obligation to convince the
Ministers about the outcomes of the decision taken.

5
S.A. Aiyar, Obama shows why India must not seek a presidential system, The Times of India Blogs, Last seen on
21/2/2022.
2. Checks and Balances- In the Presidential system, the executive, legislature and judiciary are
independent of each other. This separation of power contributes to checks and balances in
the system making it more democratic since there is no absolute concentration of powers in
the same body and the presence of other organs ensure proper working of the system.
3. Stability and Efficiency- Since there is a fixed term for both the President and legislature,
there is political stability, continuation of policies and freedom to make long term policies.
Also, the President has the power to appoint competent and expert persons as ministers.
These ministers are answerable only to the President. This assures that they perform their
duty efficiently amounting to proper administration.

DISADVANTAGES OF THE PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM:

1. Dictatorial- Since there is a concentration of all of the executive powers in the President and
there is no accountability of the executive to the legislature and people; which President
cannot be recalled by the people if he is found to be incompetent or dishonest, instead of
following a complicated and difficult process of his impeachment. Therefore, there is every
possibility of the misuse or abuse of those powers by the President .
2. Deadlock and Rigidity6- No accountability leads to lack of cooperation between the
executive and legislature. There is a tendency in both the organs to find fault and refute each
other’s decisions and policies. This gives rise to conflicts in the administration. Moreover,
this system is too rigid to adapt to the changing situations and demands. No matter how grave
or critical the situation demands the change of leadership, the Presidential system cannot be
changed instantaneously.
3. Foreign Policies- The President has no power to declare war even if the country is attacked
by an enemy. This power rests with the legislature. Also, the validity of foreign treaties
entered into by the President can be obtained after they have been ratified by the Legislature.

6
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/common/briefing/Senate_Deadlock_2013.htm
 CHAPTER III COMPARISION

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PARLIAMENTARY AND PRESIDENTIAL

FORMS OF GOVERNMENT

Comparison of these both systems are as under: -

1. Nomenclature:
In India it’s called the Parliament. In U.S it’s called the Congress. While its Lok Sabha for
India it is House of Representatives for U.S. And if its Rajya Sabha its senate for USA.
2. Functioning:
Legislation:
1) In India the bill is introduced in either of the houses and is deemed to be passed when it’s
passed by both the houses and receives the assent of the president. While in USA the
president assumes greater but not ultimate power with regard to the bill becoming a law the
bill becomes a law if both houses of The Congress of the u s pass it with a simple majority
and the president gives his assent however if the president does not take any action for
continuous number of 10 days excluding Sundays and the bill is deemed to be passed. In the
second case if the president rejects the bill from becoming a law, then its again placed before
both houses of the Congress and now if it is passed with two thirds majority the bill
automatically becomes a law without even further need of the Presidential assent.

Executive:
1) Prime minister is the nominal head of the Executive in India (Article 74) and his council
of Ministers shall have to be from either of the two houses of Indian parliament. If not, they
have to be at least get elected to either of the houses within 6 months. So practically the PM
has restricted freedom in selecting his council. Where as in USA the president is free to
nominate anyone as per his wish in to his council of ministers.
 2) The Indian PM and his council work for the people on behalf of the parliament and are
responsible to the parliament for an y of their action where as in the USA the congress has
minimal authority with respect to the president and his functioning. Exception prevails with
respect to the Budgetary laws etc.

3) The PM of India and his Government must enjoy the support of majority in the Lok Sabha
where as in USA the president may or may not enjoy the majority. Reason being that
president of USA is directly elected by the people.

4) PM at time be removed from office by No-Confidence motion where as President of USA

can’t be till 4 years.

Difference

(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 expected to select men of vision, integrate, honest having professional knowledge and
practical experience. They are also 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 446 Members of Parliament, who, in turn
are elected in most cases due to their popularity or on account of their loyalty to the party or on
sectarianism or casteism or Nawabism. The Prime Minister may be able 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 Members of Parliament 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 integrate having professional knowledge and practical experience 7.

(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 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. Some illiterate
members/ministers are elected on the basis of casteism having no educational background;
therefore, they do not have knowledge of the changes of the world. They depend on 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 programs are faithfully carried out. President can change his minister
at any time. He is not answerable to anybody.

(3) As the ministers are chosen from party men in the Parliamentary form, the party is deprived
of capable persons needed to keep the organization united, homogenous, strong and viable. As a
result of this drain of talent from the party to government, the party organization grows weak,
and indiscipline and infighting, are the result.

The Presidential system is largely free from these 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. 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. This generates the pressure groups, which

7
Ramesh Thakur – Parliamentary Government Trumps Presidential, as on 15/03/2008,http://www.thehindu.com,
Last seen on 21/03/2016.
always blackmail the ruling party as well as opposition party. Similarly, these groups also help
the bureaucracy in its effort to derail the system. This evil is unheard of in the other system.

In Presidential system of Government, one man almost all men because he possesses the
mandate to do which he thinks fit and go ahead. No one can assert pressure on him.

(5) The legislators and MPs are not free to vote according to their conscience in the
Parliamentary system. They must obey the party-whip or face expulsion
 CHAPTER IV CONCLUSION

India as a nation is deeply divided into several groups with conflicting interests. In this situation
switching to presidential form of government can be counter-productive. True, parliamentary
form of government makes decision making process a lengthy one in India but it manages to
keep the political integrity intact. At least, it doesn’t curtail the freedom of people. In presidential
form of government, the president can start behaving like an autocrat by imposing his decisions
on masses. Moreover, the nation is in no mood for any new experiment which could pose any
danger to its unity. India is very form of government much used to the parliamentary government
since British Raj. Switching to presidential form of government will add only confusion. At least
all the varied groups are getting representation in parliamentary form of government. Therefore,
India should continue with the parliamentary form of government. Every nation should adopt
that system which is most suitable to the citizen of that country instead following the system left
by their master, because this tendency do not develop the system of government. China is the
example, who adopted neither Presidential and Parliament system of Government nor
communism. There is the system having combination of Presidential and Parliamentary as well
as communist systems of Government. For example, there is People’s Procurator ate, which is an
independent elected body for five years having power to lodge protest with the Supreme People’s
Court against any decision/order passed by Supreme Court.
As per my research there is no country, which have such system of check and balance. USA is
another example, who adopted different system of Government i.e Presidential form of
Government instead parliamentary system of Government left by United Kingdom. Intellectuals
of America showing their domination by change in the spells of English language. They also
introduced the doctrine of separation of power. This doctrine was not following in UK in the
recent past. Judicial authorities were being exercised by the House of Lords, who were also
members of the Legislature. Resultantly, sometimes they were exercising their influence in any
one institute.
However, people love either Presidential or Parliamentary systems of Government. But
according to my notion Parliament system of Government is the best than Presidential system of
Government because this system contains option to select/chose the best one member who
represents every Constituency of country either Urban or Rural. Legislation is being made
keeping in view of the reservations of all constituency. Prime Minister leads the house with all
members and tries to run the affairs of Government with consensus of majority. There is no
absolute power. All matters either domestic or international are decided with consensus of
political parties. All members keep close contact with the citizens of their constituencies, which
result fruitful public opinion.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1. Definition according to – http://www.merriam-webster.com, Last seen on 22/2/2022

2. Devesh Kapur and Pratap Bhanu Mehta, The Indian Parliament as An Institution of
Accountability

3. According to Durga Das Basu, Commentary on The Constitution of India, (8th Edition 2012

4. Devesh Kapur and Pratap Bhanu Mehta, The Indian Parliament as An Institution of
Accountability, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, January 2006

5. Ramesh Thakur – Parliamentary Government Trumps Presidential, http://www.thehindu.com,

Last seen on 22/02/2022.

6. http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/common/briefing/Senate_Deadlock_2013.htm, Last seen

on 21/02/2022

7. Constitution of India by J N Pandey ,51st edition