The presence of large number of political parties in India has resulted in unstable governments and even created problems in the formation of governments. Multiplicity of parties has led to factionalism & frequent defection. Lust for power is the main driving force for this.
In view of these, constitutional experts like Palkhivala favoured replacement of parliamentary government by presidential system, as it offers the following advantages:-
- decisive leadership
- checking/balancing of power
- necessarily cumbersome legislative procedures
- stability, personalized leadership
- ease to pinpoint responsibility
However the Presidential system can solve only few problems like Stable governments, clear separation of power, there is always a tendency in the Presidential system to degenerate into an authoritarian government. Also in a presidential system, leadership change in case a president proves to be inefficient is often difficult. In a parliamentary system, the inefficient leader can be removed from office by a no confidence motion, a device which is a “pressure release value” for political tension.
Arguments against Presidential systems are more compelling. Negative characteristics of Parl. systems cannot be avoided—but institutional remedies exist. Hence it is not advisable to change the form of government rather the need is to handle the existing system properly. The parliamentary system can ensure better representation to a pluralist society like India. The need is to bring reforms in parliamentary system like electoral reforms, public awareness and promotion of values in the society.