Q. Which of the following are possible demerits of the “Indian Parliamentary form of Government’?
1. Government by Amateurs
2. Lack of responsibility of Executive
3. Against Separation of Power
4. Dictatorship of the Cabinet
Select the correct answer from the codes given below:
Exp) Option c is the correct answer.
The parliamentary system of government is the one in which the executive is responsible to the legislature for its policies and acts. The Constitution of India provides for a parliamentary form of government, both at the Centre and in the states. Articles 74 and 75 deal with the parliamentary system at the Centre and Articles 163 and 164 in the states.
Statement 2 is incorrect: One of the merits of Parliamentary form of government is responsible government. The ministers are responsible to the Parliament for all their acts of omission and commission. The Parliament exercises control over the ministers through various devices like question hour, discussions, adjournment motion, no confidence motion, etc.
| Important Tips Demerits of Parliamentary form of Government: • Government by Amateurs: The parliamentary system is not conducive to administrative efficiency as the ministers are not experts in their fields. The Prime Minister has a limited choice in the selection of ministers; his choice is restricted to the members of Parliament alone and does not extend to external talent. • Against Separation of Powers: In the parliamentary system, the legislature and the executive are together and inseparable. The cabinet acts as the leader of legislature as well as the executive. As Bagehot points out, ‘the cabinet is a hyphen that joins the buckle that binds the executive and legislative departments together.’ Hence, the whole system of government goes against the letter and spirit of the theory of separation of powers. In fact, there is a fusion of powers. • Dictatorship of the Cabinet: When the ruling party enjoys absolute majority in the Parliament, the cabinet becomes autocratic and exercises nearly unlimited powers. H.J. Laski says that the parliamentary system gives the executive an opportunity for tyranny. Ramsay Muir, the former British Prime Minister, also complained of the ‘dictatorship of the cabinet’. This phenomenon was witnessed during the era of Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi. Emergency rule in 1975, showed that even a parliamentary system can be distorted to permit autocratic rule through the Dictatorship of the Cabinet. • Unstable Government: The parliamentary system does not provide a stable government. There is no guarantee that a government can survive its tenure. The ministers depend on the mercy of the majority legislators for their continuity and survival in office. A no-confidence motion or political defection or evils of multiparty coalition can make the government unstable. • No Continuity of Policies: The parliamentary system is not conductive for the formulation and implementation of long-term policies. This is due to the uncertainty of the tenure of the government. A change in the ruling party is usually followed by changes in the policies of the government. For example, the Janata Government headed by Morarji Desai in 1977 reversed a large number of policies of the previous Congress Government. |
