Parliamentary vs Prseident Form

Parliamentary form	Features: Benefits: formal heads acts a safety valve less possibility of dead lock less likelihood of authoritarianism more accountable participative and representative Negative: less stable limited field of choice for CoM not experts Politics Vs government: head often diverted towards politics Delays Balance is favoured towards executive  Extra-constitutional influences Opportunistic defection Accountability is sacrificed at times of complete majority Role of RS declined during complete majority Why we chose this: Chose accountability over stability more democratic historic legacy used to
Presidential	Features: head of the govt. is the leader of the  masses Negatives: Supreme court of India already held parliamentary form of Government as part of the basic structure of the constitution. centralizes power and chances of it turning in to an authoritative system are high do not reflect the diversity well. Spoil system while choosing CoM stalemate situation between executive and legislature Personality cult Positives: quick decision making stability synchronization of LS and States election Strong finanical control Talent and expertise India will not have a US style two party grid lock. So issue based coalitions comes in to picture. It helps for greater debate in the houses.
Way forward	whatever the advantages of presidential system stated are can be arrived through parliamentary system through reforms in electoral and parliamentary practices. India has tested Parliamentary system for nearly 70 years and it has worked relatively well. The way forward is to reform. Need for stability since accountability has been achieved from parliament as well as people's awareness  How : Constructive no confidence Extending ADL to the coalition etc In case of majority there is difficulty to ensure accountability How to ensure: