Parliamentary form of government

Parliamentary form of Government

There are two types of Parliamentary form of government.

1. Prime Ministerial form of government
2. Cabinet form of government

Prime Ministerial form of government 

• When PM is single charismatic personality and no one oppose him.
• Advantage - quick decision making (which is important during crises)
• Disadvantage - undemocratic/authoritarian

It is a form of Parliamentary form of government in which Prime Minister dominated over cabinet. His decisions are generally not opposed by cabinet and accepted well.

It mostly happens when PM is the undisputed leader of the party or he is leading a majority party or he led victory to his party in the election.

The decisions taken here are not necessarily collective in nature and thus against the spirit of parliamentary government.

Though, there is also some advantage of this form of government. Decisions will be taken faster which is very much essential in the times of crises and it always gives clear direction to the administration.

However, this form of government can be dangerous also, since PM may take decisions keeping in mind not the larger interest of the country rather his personal political future (for example - imposing emergency). 

Decision taken may be hasty as well as may give rise to extra constitutional authority in the form of what is called as Inner Cabinet or  Kitchen Cabinet, where decisions taken may not be that qualitative since concentration is limited.

Moreover, this can go against the very concept of collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers. Also the members of these bodies may exercise political powers without adequate responsibility.

Cabinet form of Government 

• where decision is taken by the cabinet after consulting all cabinet ministers
• Advantage - Democratic
• Disadvantage - Delay in decision making

It is a style of government within the parliamentary form in which cabinet dominated over the Prime Minister. Though PM exerts his influence in decision making, he is not in the position to override the decision of the cabinet.

Thus, here decisions taken by the cabinet are truly collective and are taken after much deliberation (discussion) which strengthen the spirit of collective responsibility and parliamentary democracy.

However, the disadvantage can be, it can slow down the decision making process.

Shadow Cabinet - Shadow cabinet is a national cabinet formed by the main opposition party in parliamentary form of government. It functions fine where there is a two party political system.

A shadow cabinet is headed by the opposition leader who is called Shadow PM who appoints the members of his political party from the parliament as shadow ministers and distribute portfolios among them.

Shadow ministers lead the opposition whenever discussion takes place on his subject. It helps in bringing our fallacy (faulty decisions) or weakness in the government policies and thus imposes greater accountabilities of Council of minister in the parliament.

It also helps in finding the talent in opposition and training MPs in the art of administration even when they are in opposition.

The system works well in England but is absent in India for a reason that there exists too many political parties. 

Difference between Parliamentary form of government and Presidential form of government

In presidential form of the government, president is the real executive head of the state who is elected directly by the people for a fixed period of time.

President in presidential form is not really responsible to the legislature.

In presidential system, president chooses the members of the council of ministers from the citizen at large who are not member of the legislature.

whereas in the parliamentary form of government, the real executive powers lie with the council of ministers headed by the PM and the members of the council of ministers are drawn from the legislature only and council of minister is responsible to the popular house (Lok Sabha).

Advantage of Parliamentary System in India 

1. Parliamentary form of the government is more suitable for India since members of the council have to be drawn from the legislature, i.e., parliament which is a mini-nation in assembly having diverse representation. Thus, it will ensure better representation for almost all the sections of India's heterogenous population in the council of ministers.
2. Parliamentary system provides for a direct, continuous and concurrent control of people and parliament over the executive/government which is better than periodic control on the government which is seen in presidential form of government.
• Parliamentary form → vigilance all over the term → have many tools to remove the government → can be removed at any time
• Presidential form → less control on the government & less tool to remove the government (impeachment or wait for next election for removing the government).
3. In parliamentary system there exist a close cooperation and coordination between the legislature and the executive which ensures smooth functioning of the government whereas in presidential system there exists a complete separation of executive and legislature which may lead to deadlock or clash over the passage of law or other decision causing constitutional crises sometimes.
4. In parliamentary form of the government, there is no direct election for the Prime Minister, i.e., head of the government rather we elect representatives (MPs) which is good for India because this way people choose their local representative who raise the concerns of diverse sections of Indian population in the parliament. One man, i.e., the head of the government if elected directly by the people the way it happens in presidential system may not be able to do justice to the diverse aspirations of the diverse sections of the Indian population.
5. India is familiar with the parliamentary system since British time. Thus, it is easy to continue it.
6. Often political instability is cited/given as a reason to switch from parliamentary system to presidential system. However, the very same system has brought stable government and is working well in other democracies like Britain and Canada. In India, if we have seen unstable government it is not because of the inherent flaws in the system of the parliamentary government rather it is the lack of popularity of the party among the major sections of the society, i.e., no major party succeeded in fulfilling the diverse aspirations of the country's population. It is also because of irresponsible behaviour displayed by few parliamentarians for personal gains and they can do so as they feel voters in this country are themselves divided on parochial grounds and thus may not punish them during the election for their irresponsible behaviour.
• To add stability, the current tool of accountability like confidence motion can be replaced by a better tool like 'Constructive motion of no confidence'.

Constructive motion of no confidence - Under this system opposition introduced two motions simultaneously in the lower house of the parliament. The first motion expresses the lack of confidence of Council of ministers in the house and the second motion expresses confidence of the leader of the opposition in the house. 

Both motions are put simultaneously to vote in the house and if both the motions are passed it amounts to the house having expressed its confidence in the opposition party and the lack of confidence in the current government and thus the current council of ministers goes out of the office and the new government is obtained without going for re-election.

However, if only 1st motion is passed and the second one is defeated, then the current council of minister shall continue in the office because the opposition inspite of proving the lack of confidence in the government failed to provide an alternative. 

Thus, this tool prevents the opposition from voting out the government from the power irresponsibly.

Limitations of the Parliamentary form of government 

1. Political instability is seen as the most potent loophole or weakness of the parliamentary form of the government.
2. Political defection or horse trading among the members of the legislature is more common in parliamentary system and can have much effect on its working.
3. In parliamentary system, the council of ministers is more concerned about its own political survival than the administration of the country because of the fear of political instability. This can make them taking populist decisions (not the most rational one).
4. In parliamentary system, legislation control over the executive is expected to be its main strength as it ensures a responsible government but in practice this control is more of a myth rather it is the executive having majority in lower house which is in the position to influence the legislations at least in lower house, if not in upper house.
5. In presidential system head of the government is free to hand pick his ministers from citizens at large and thus allows him to pick up experts of various areas to become ministers.
6. In parliamentary system, Prime minister is not elected directly by the people and people elect only the representative of the parliament from their local areas. Thus, people may be guided by parochial tendencies while they vote and may lose a national perspective while electing their representatives.
• However, if people have to elect their head of the government directly the way they do in presidential election, then they may carry a national perspective while voting.

Thus, all in all parliamentary system has offered India more advantages than offered by the presidential system. So, we must continue with the parliamentary system of correcting its current problems, i.e., addressing the problem of instability rather than shifting to a complete new system.

Conventions in Parliamentary form of Government 

Conventions are unwritten rules which are not in the constitution but they emerged on the basis of familiarities and usage.

Conventions are regarded as binding on all the organs of the government, though they are not legally binding.

Conventions are flexible in nature, since they don't involve the hustles of constitutional interpretation. Their purpose is to smoothen the administration and helps in smooth functioning of the government.

Some of the Parliamentary convention practiced in India are -

1. Council of ministers shall resign on having lost majority in Lok Sabha.
2. President shall give assent to the money bill.
3. Three regular sessions of the parliament every year.
4. Deputy speaker of the Lok Sabha is from the opposition party if speaker is from the ruling party.
5. Attorney General of India shall resign with the fall of the government.
6. Care taker government also functions and exists under convention.

Care taker Government - Care taker government is one that comes into existence when council of minister loses confidence in Lok Sabha or Lok Sabha stands dissolve.

It is a government in interregnum (transitional period) and it lasts until a new government is formed.

It comes into existence because, under Article 74 President of India shall have a council of minister to aid and advice him while discharging his executive functions. Thus, there is no direct provision in the constitution about the caretaker goverment.

Supreme Court clarified in 1971 that the caretaker government is a government out of necessity. Constitution of India is silent on caretaker government and its powers. They are government by convention.

Caretaker government is supposed to carry out only the day-to-day administrative functions and is not supposed to take important decisions since it does not enjoy the confidence of Lok Sabha.

Caretaker government can't financially commit the next government not it can enter into a treaty with any foreign state.

Though caretaker government has been put into a restricted mode, not in a rigid mode since during a national crises or for national interest it can act firmly and take important policy decisions. It can also take important decisions to safeguard the national interest though only with the prior permission of the President of India.

Interim Government, Caretaker Government, Coalition Government and National Government

Caretaker government- discussed above

Interim government - 

• 1947 → Government of Britain left India
• 1950 → Constitution of India
• 1952 → Formation of 1st government after general election
• 1947 to 1952 → Transitional period
• The Constituent Assembly had dual duty (drafting a new Constitution & making laws for the country)
• Thus, the Constituent Assembly works as the Interim government during that period.

Interim government is formed during the transitional phase of the political history of India. It is a full fledge government which will last till the permanent arrangement is made to install a popularly elected government via enactment of a new Constitution.

Coalition government - It is formed by the coalition of two or more political parties with some common goals to be achieved.

National government - It is one which is a coalition government of all the political parties present in the parliament and thus there is no opposition party. It is formed during the period of great national crises and it is a full fledge government.

Previous Article - PM and its Council of Ministers

Next Article - Difference between parliamentary and presidential government

Notes on other subjects 

Ancient History

Medieval History

Modern History

Art & Culture

Polity

Geography

Economy

International Relations

Society

Ethics

Optional Subject 

Public Administration

Note - This is my Vision IAS Notes (Vision IAS Class Notes) and Ashutosh Pandey Sir's Public Administration Class notes. I've also added some of the information on my own. 

Hope! It will help you to achieve your dream of getting selected in Civil Services Examination 👍