UNIT 3

Parliamentary and Presidential form of Government

3.1. Parliamentary form - features, merits and demerits

Parliamentary Form of Government

A democratic government known as a parliamentary one is one in which

the political party winning the most seats in the federal election’s legislative
or Parliament becomes the ruling party. India’s parliamentary system of
government is comparable to that of the UK.

A parliamentary form of government is one in which the executive and

legislative branches have divided authority and are essentially inaccessible
to one another. The Parliament is a better idea as a result.

Parliamentary Form of Government History

Since the beginning of time, when civilizations were tribal, there have
existed councils or a headman whose decisions were evaluated by village
elders. Over time, these councils evolved into the modern parliamentary
system. Alfonso IX, King of Leon (Spain), gathered the three states in the
Cortes of León in 1188, establishing the first parliaments in Europe.

An early version of parliamentary government emerged in the present-day

Netherlands and Belgium during the Dutch Revolt (1581) when the States-
General of the Netherlands seized the royal, legislative, and executive
powers from the monarch, King Philip II of Spain.

The modern idea of parliamentary government emerged in the United

Kingdom between 1707 and 1800, and the Swedish Parliamentary System
did so between 1721 and 1772. Following World War I, democracy and
parliamentary gained more and more traction in Europe.

1
Parliamentary Form of Government Features

There are some significant features of a Parliamentary Form of

Government. They have been listed down below:

Real and Nominal Executives

The President serves as the formal executive, while the Prime Minister is
the actual executive (de facto executive). As a result, the President is the
President of the State, and the Prime Minister is the Prime Minister of the
Government.

Dual Membership

The Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers represent the executive,
while the Parliament serves as the legislative body. The executive is
developed from the legislative since members of parliament elect the prime
minister and other cabinet officials.

Collective Responsibility

The legislative branch holds the executive jointly responsible. There is a

concept of collective accountability, meaning that the Council as a whole is
accountable for the duties of each minister.

Secret Procedure

This type of management mandates that cabinet discussions be held in

private and not made public.

Leadership under the Prime Minister

The Prime Minister is in charge of this kind of government.

2
Majority Party Rule

The prime minister is normally chosen by the leader of the party that gains
a majority in the lower chamber.

Bicameral Legislature

The majority of parliamentary democracies have bicameral legislatures.

Political Homogeneity

The members of the ministers’ council have similar political ideologies

because they often belong to the same political party. The ministers of a
coalition government are required by the agreement.

No Fixed Term

The length of the government’s term is determined by the lower house’s

majority vote. The ministers are required to resign if a motion of no
confidence in the government is unsuccessful. There will be elections, and
a new government will be installed.

Parliamentary Form of Government Constitutional Provision

The Indian Constitution contains four clauses that support a parliamentary

system of governance.

Article 74

It focuses on the advice and helps the President receives from the Cabinet
of Ministers as he performs his duties. The amended advice must be
adopted if the President asks the Cabinet of Ministers to reconsider. The
President’s suggestions from the Council of Ministers are not up for judicial
review.

3
Article 75

According to this system, the President selects the Prime Minister and,
depending on the Prime Minister’s suggestions, the President selects the
other ministries. Ministers are chosen by the President to serve during his
or her term in office. The Lok Sabha is ultimately responsible for the actions
of the Cabinet of Ministers.

Article 163

It focuses on how the Cabinet of Ministers supports and advises the

Governor as he discharges his duties. If the Governor is acting at their own
discretion, they are not compelled to seek the advice and aid of the
Ministerial Council. The Governor’s proposals from the Council of Ministers
are not susceptible to judicial review.

Article 164

The following is covered, including the fact that the Governor appoints the
Chief Minister and names other ministries on the Chief Minister’s advice.
Ministers are chosen by the governor for the duration of their tenure in
office. The Ministers are jointly accountable, according to the state’s
Legislative Assembly.

Parliamentary Form of Government Merit

Parliamentary Form of Government has many merits few of which are

mentioned below:

Cooperation Between the Legislative and Executive Branches

The main benefit of the parliamentary system is that it guarantees friendly

communication and cooperation between the legislative and executive
branches of government.

Responsible Government

4
The parliamentary system creates an accountable government by design.
The Parliament must be informed of all ministers’ conduct and omissions.
Parliament uses a variety of tools to exert oversight over ministers,
including question periods, debates, adjournment motions, no-confidence
motions, and others.

Prevents Despotism

In this system, a council of ministers, rather than a single individual, is

given executive power. This decentralization of authority checks the
authoritarian tendencies of the executive. Additionally, the administration is
answerable to Parliament and subject to no-confidence votes.

Wide Representation

A group of people make up the executive in a parliamentary system. (i.e.,

ministers who are representatives of the people). As a result, the
government may represent all ethnicities and geographical regions of the
nation. The prime minister can take this into consideration when selecting
ministers.

Parliamentary Form of Government Demerit

Parliamentary Form of Government has certain demerits, a few of which

have been explained below:

No Separation of Powers

It is impossible for the legislature to consistently hold the executive

accountable when there is a lack of a complete separation of powers. This
is especially true if the government has a strong majority in the House.
Anti-defection rules also prevent parliamentarians from exercising their free
will and voting in accordance with their convictions and understanding.
They have to follow the party line.

Unqualified Lawmakers

5
The system only generates legislators who are interested in moving up to
the executive branch. They lack the qualifications needed to enact laws.

Instability

Since governments can only continue for as long as they can demonstrate
a majority in the parliament, there is uncertainty if there is no obvious
winner following the elections. Coalition governments are frequently short-
lived and very unstable. The administration must therefore focus on staying
in office rather than worrying about the welfare or general state of the
public.

Ministers

The executive should include members of the ruling party. Therefore,

engaging subject-matter experts is not recommended.

Failure to Make a Quick Decision

Because it lacks a clear tenure, the Ministerial Council routinely postpones

making significant, long-term policy decisions.

Party Politics

Party politics are more pronounced in the parliamentary system because

partisan interests rather than national concerns drive parliamentarians.

Bureaucratic Control

Civil officials are incredibly powerful. They offer guidance to the ministers
on a range of subjects, although they are not accountable to the legislature.

6
Parliamentary Form of Government and Presidential Form of Government

In the table below we will see the difference between both forms of
government:

Basis Parliamentary Form of Presidential Form of

Government Government
Executive Dual Single
Accountability Executive accountable to the Executive not accountable to
legislature the legislature
Ministers Only MPs People outside the legislature
can be appointed
Dissolution of lower house PM can dissolve before the President cannot dissolve
expiry of the term
Tenure Not fixed Fixed

3.2. Presidential form- features, merits and demerits

The Presidential form of government is the kind of government where

the President holds the executive power and complete authority over the
functioning and administration of the country. This system is also known as
the single executive system. In this system of government, the President is
independent of the legislature on a constitutional basis.

The President is the Head of State in a parliamentary government but in

the case of a Presidential form of government, he acts both as the Head of
State and Head of Government. The United States is governed by the
Presidential system. This system was originated by the founders of
America as they wished to bring an alternative to the Parliamentary system.

What is the Presidential Form of Government?

A Presidential system of government provides complete power to the
President of the nation. Unlike in the Parliamentary form of government,
where the Prime Minister possesses all the executive authority, here the
President controls the administration and functioning of the government
and is the Head of the Government along with being the Head of State.

The Presidential form of government is very much different from the

Parliamentary government in the sense that here the head of the
government is elected by an elected legislature. In the nations following this

7
system of government, the President is elected contrary to the
Parliamentary system and he/she is not accountable to the legislature.

Presidential Form of Government Examples

The Presidential system is followed in many countries in the world. One of

the most prominent examples of this system is the government of the
United States of America. The US Government works completely on this
principle and the President governs the country. Some other examples of
the Presidential form of government are

 Sri Lanka
 Brazil
 South Korea
 Colombia
 Costa Rica
 Angola
 Maldives
 Mexico
 Nigeria

Features of the Presidential System of Government

The Presidential system of the USA is clearly not authoritarian as is argued
at times. There has not been a single instance where the President has
faced any accusation related to autocratic behaviour. The features of the
Presidential form of government have been listed below:

 Head of the State – The President is not only the Head of State but
also the Head of Government. He is the actual head of the executive
branch in the Presidential form of government.
 Dissociation of Powers – The Presidential system functions on the
main principle of dissociation or separation of powers. It does not
work on the idea of providing powers to a group of people such as
the council of ministers.
 Election of the Leader – The Head of the Government is elected
either by the people or through an elected legislature.
 The Principle of Checks and balances – Although all the
government organs are separate from each other, they still have the
authority to check & object to any unlawful act of their counterparts.
 Political Homogeneity – The Presidential form of government
encourages variety and does not adhere to the principle of
homogeneity in the cabinet. The members can be from different
political parties.

8
Merits of Presidential Form of Government
One of the best benefits of a Presidential system is that it can prove to be
the most appropriate solution in an emergency situation. Some of the other
merits of the Presidential form of Government are given below:

 Separation of powers: Since the three branches of the government

are autonomous from one another, administration efficiency is
significantly increased.
 Expert government: Because the president can appoint experts in
numerous fields to lead pertinent departments or ministries, the
executive branch is not required to be made up of legislators. This
will guarantee that the government comprises skilled and
knowledgeable individuals.
 Stability: This form of government has stability. He need not be
worried about losing the government because the president’s tenure
is fixed and not dependent on legislative support. There is no threat
of the government abruptly falling. The president is not under any
political duress to make choices.
 Limited influence of the party system: Since the tenure of the
government is set, political parties do not try to overthrow it.

Demerits of Presidential Form of Government

Apart from all the advantages that the Presidential system has, it also
possesses many disadvantages. A few of the demerits of the Presidential
form of government have been discussed below:

 Risk of despotism – The President is the only Head of the State and
the Government which increases the risk of him becoming despotic.
He enjoys absolute control and power over the whole country and his
tenure is also fixed.
 Possibility of a stand-off – Due to the power separation between
the executive and legislative branches, there is always a possibility
of a rift between the two organs of the government.
 Lack of flexibility – A Presidential form of government is often titled
a rigid one. It is said to be of a non-flexible nature.
 Faulty system – Owing to the separation of powers between the two
branches of executive and legislative, there is a lack of harmony
between the two. This leads to decreased efficiency of the system.

Role of President in Presidential Form of

Government
9
As is quite evident by the title, the Presidential form of government is
completely dependent on the President. He is the chief executive who is
usually elected by the people on a direct level. The President in this case
has to perform various duties including the enforcement of laws, and policy-
making.

The President is the one who has full control but is not have the ultimate
power similar to what a Prime Minister holds in a Parliamentary system of
government. Due to the division of power among all the three organs of
government – executive, legislative, and judicial – there is no single person
holding complete power.

3.3. Other forms: One party democracy and military rule

military rule
Military rule, political regime in which the military as an organization holds a
preponderance of power. The term military rule as used here is synonymous
with military regime and refers to a subtype of authoritarian regime.

For most of human history, attaching military to rule would have been redundant,
because almost all political regimes in large-scale societies of the premodern period
fused military, religious, economic, and monarchical power. The separation of
military and civilian powers and the development of professional bureaucratic armed
forces in European states in the 18th and 19th centuries gave birth to the
contemporary understanding of military rule.

Not all authoritarian regimes involve military rule. In the 20th century the most-
repressive nondemocratic regimes, most notably the Nazis in Germany and the
Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union, were party dictatorships in which civilian
control of the military was well established. Other types of authoritarian rule distinct
from military rule include traditional (e.g., absolutist monarchies) and personalistic,
or “sultanistic,” regimes.

Since the end of World War II, military rule has occurred almost exclusively in
countries of the so-called developing world. Modernization theorists, influential in
the 1950s and ’60s, were initially confident that the newly independent nations of
the Middle East, Africa, and Asia (as well as Latin America) would evolve into
capitalist democracies, with civilian control over the military. Those expectations
were dashed by a wave of military coups d’état that reached its height in the 1960s
and ’70s.
Origins of military rule
Analyses of the circumstances that lead to the rise of military rule
abound. Empirical studies suggest that there is no direct correlation between the size
of the military or its budget and its propensity to seize power. Further, the reasons
for hierarchical coups (led by the high command) tend to be different from those for

10
coups led by junior officers (those with the rank of, or equivalent to, army captain or
below). Rather more useful is the distinction between factors internal to the armed
forces, domestic political variables, and international influences. In the first category,
violations of military hierarchy by civilian politicians, an expansion of the military’s
capacity or sense of mission, and a heightened sense of threat can all trigger coups.
With regard to domestic politics, high degrees of political conflict (especially ethnic
and religious conflict), economic crises, weak political parties (especially right-wing
parties), and low-capacity state institutions have been observed to precede military
takeovers. Significant in that category is also the image of the military in national
politics and, in particular, the degree of popular identification of the military with
certain positive national values. Internationally, the threat of or defeat in war,
foreign political and military assistance, and an enabling international environment,
including military rule in neighbouring countries and international recognition of
military regimes, can facilitate coups. A “cascade effect” has been observed in some
regions, whereby military rule, first established in a single country, occurs elsewhere
in subsequent years, leading to cooperation between military regimes. (For example,
the 1964 coup in Brazil was followed by a coup in Argentina in 1966, coups
in Chile and Uruguay in 1973, and another coup in Argentina in 1976.)

Superpower competition was likely an important factor in the proliferation of

military regimes seen during the Cold War. Large amounts of military assistance
from the United States and the Soviet Union strengthened military capacity within
allied or “client” states. Within the U.S. sphere of influence, the increased emphasis
on internal security threats in the wake of the Cuban Revolution (1959) contributed
to an increase in direct military involvement in politics. Since the end of the Cold
War and the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, there has been a marked decline in
the number of military regimes in the developing world.

Mechanisms and impacts of military rule

Militaries are hierarchical organizations that specialize in the deployment of
violence, so it is often assumed that militaries rule by force and by force alone.
However, military rule often involves complicated attempts to secure some measure
of consent from the governed. Some military regimes, for example, have permitted
elections to national and subnational representative bodies. Others have used
judiciaries, of varying degrees of independence, to approximate or simulate the rule
of law. Still others have promulgated, and sometimes actually adhered to,
constitutions. Even so, the application of military law to civilians and the threat or
use of extrajudicial repression (such as torture, disappearances, and killings) by the
state’s security forces studies are commonplace under military regimes.

Although part of the state apparatus, militaries enjoy a high degree of

relative autonomy because of their control over the means of coercion. (That control,
though still significant in most places, does not necessarily represent a monopoly,
because of the prevalence of irregular armed forces in the developing world.)
However, militaries do not constitute a monolithic single actor. They are
hierarchically divided between a high command, junior officers, and enlisted
personnel, and horizontal competition and rivalry between the different service
branches (typically the army, navy, and air force) can be intense. Further, they are
often divided along class, regional, and gender lines (although militaries in most
developing countries still allow only very-limited roles for women). In ethnically

11
divided societies, variation in rates of military recruitment across the major ethnic
groups can result in the armed forces being seen as constituted by, or representing,
one ethnic group against others. All those divisions tend to be exacerbated when the
military comes to power, and many military regimes have foundered as a result of
their inability to manage them.

Military rule increases the probability of subsequent military coups and attempted
coups. The rewards of direct rule often increase competition and conflict within the
armed forces. Some military regimes attempt to manage that competition by, for
example, allocating the spoils of office equitably between the different service
branches. (That was true of the 1976–83 military regime in Argentina.) Other
military regimes carefully monitor and purge personnel within the armed forces and
the state as a whole.

Military regimes also tend to foster militarism or the glorification of war and military
prowess. Many military leaders see politics as a continuation of war by other means.
That leads them to resort to force in the resolution of conflicts. Military rulers may
demand that civilian organizations develop hierarchical
and disciplined configurations along military lines.

Such demands can backfire. Some military regimes have inadvertently stimulated a
flowering of oppositional cultural and political activity, as artists, students, religious
leaders, dissidents, and others express themselves in new ways in opposition to
the authoritarianism inherent in military rule. The attempted imposition of martial
standards of behaviour on recalcitrant populations can produce rare moments of
political electricity in which large numbers of people are united in defiance of the
generals. The popularity of Fela Anikulapo Kuti, the outspoken musician and critic of
military rule in Nigeria, or the participation of many of the most popular artists of
the day in the “Direct Elections Now” (Diretas Já) campaign in Brazil in 1984 are
cases in point.

Transitions from military rule

Most military regimes of the 1960s and ’70s became civilian in subsequent decades.
Analysts distinguish between regime liberalization, or the lifting of repression and
the restoration of various civil liberties, and democratization, or the reestablishment
of a civilian multiparty regime with accompanying democratic rights. There is some
debate over whether the first process leads inevitably to the second. Regime
transitions presided over by the military, in which democracy is the ostensible end
goal, have been especially problematic because militaries have tended to periodically
interfere in the process in order to produce their desired outcome. An example of
that is Nigeria, where the military regime of Ibrahim Babangida (1985–93) initially
promised to return the country to civilian rule by 1990, pushed that deadline back to
1992 after a coup attempt, and then annulled the presidential elections of 1993. The
Babangida “transition” ended in a coup led by General Sani Abacha in 1993.

Military regimes have ended in a variety of ways. Some have collapsed after a failed
military adventure (e.g., Greece in 1974 and Argentina in 1983), whereas others
managed to negotiate their way out of power through the use of formal or informal
agreements (an example of the former is the 1984 Naval Club Pact in Uruguay). In an

12
unusual example, the Chilean military regime (1973–90) was voted out of office in a
1988 plebiscite scheduled in its 1980 constitution, and that was followed by a
1989 election that restored civilian rule. Not all transitions actually lead to civilian
rule, of course. Military regimes are sometimes replaced by a new version of the same
type of regime, as in Nigeria in 1993, when Abacha replaced Babangida.

Military prerogatives established under military rule can outlast the military regime
itself. Those prerogatives may include army control over the police or a role for the
military in internal public security; a special responsibility for “law and order” or the
rule of law being bestowed on the armed forces in the constitution, giving
it constitutional cover for political intervention; a fixed allotment of the national
budget for the military; higher salaries for military officers than other state officials;
control over the intelligence apparatus; control over civilian activities (such as civil
aviation); economic privileges (such as special export-import licenses, direct control
over state-owned firms, and the like); and military veto power over various decisions
beyond national defense. It is not uncommon for post-military regimes to find that
they must seek military approval for a wide variety of state activities. Stable civilian
rule, however, is not synonymous with the reduction of military prerogatives, and,
indeed, civil-military peace is sometimes purchased at the price of not reviewing or
reforming any of those legacies of military rule.

 one-party state
 One-party state, a country where a single political party controls the
government, either by law or in practice. Examples of one-party states
include North Korea, China, Eritrea, and Cuba.


 German troops
 German troops marching at a Nazi Party rally at Nürnberg, Germany, in 1933.
 For much of the 20th century, many of the one-party states were communist-
run, including the Soviet Union and its eastern European satellite countries.
In communist countries, the party is the ideological
engine; Marxist doctrine calls for the dictatorship of the proletariat to be in
charge as society transitions from capitalism to pure socialism. So real power
in communist societies rests with party leaders, typically the first secretary,
rather than with the head of state. Ruling communist parties exert a
stranglehold over their citizens through propaganda, censorship, reeducation
camps, and other forms of indoctrination. Officials who do not follow the
party line face expulsion from the party and worse. In the 1930s and
through World War II (1939–45), there were also one-party states run
by fascists, such as Nazi Germany, Italy, and Spain, although the party didn’t
play the same dominant ideological role in those countries that the party does
in communist-run countries.

Since the end of World War II, one-party states have been found more often
among less-developed countries. Sometimes rulers have rationalized
their monopoly on political power as a means to unify the country and
minimize ethnic divisions. These rulers have faced pressure to offer more

13
political freedoms, but, even when they have staged elections, the ruling
party has often maintained power. There have also been instances when
opposing parties have had success in elections, only to be rebuffed by rulers
who refuse to cede power.
A notable example of the latter circumstance took place in Zimbabwe, where
Pres. Robert Mugabe (of the ZANU-PF party) led what was essentially a one-party
state for many years, first serving as prime minister (1980–87) and then as president
(1987–2017). In 2008 he faced Morgan Tsvangirai of the Movement for Democratic
Change (MDC) in the March presidential election. Tsvangirai received the most
votes, but authorities claimed he did not win a majority of the vote and
a runoff election was scheduled in June. In a rally held before the runoff, Mugabe
telegraphed his views about giving up power when he declared, “Only God, who
appointed me, will remove me, not the MDC, not the British. Only God will remove
me!” The political climate was tense, and many of Tsvangirai’s supporters were
harassed, violently attacked, or murdered. Citing the impossibility of the poll being
free and fair, Tsvangirai withdrew from the runoff. This paved the way for Mugabe to
win in an uncontested election and gain another term in office. He eventually
included Tsvangirai in his government, as prime minister, per the terms of an
internationally brokered power-sharing agreement. The arrangement was ended
after Mugabe won another disputed election in 2013.

Critics have assailed one-party states for their poor human rights records as well as
their sclerotic systems that hold back economic progress.

………………………………………………………………………………

14