I don;t know about this debate. I don't think it is even real. India cannot have a Presidential system because I don't think this nation is capable of a consensus candidate. The interests of the constituent states has to be represented at the centre because the power sharing arrangement in the Constitution as it stands is heavily biased in favor of the centre. Greater power was not granted to the states at the time of independence because there was a genuine fear of fragmentation.
In today's scenario, I think the lack of consensus over any one candidate, and in fact the impossibility of it, is betrayed by the constancy of coalition politics. Hence, I think having a President is an impossibility. Yes, the BJP may be trying to project a single leader, but so is everyone else. If Sonia were willing to be PM there would be no doubt about the Cong's candidate. And even if a proxy is elected, there is no doubt about who is in charge. The left does not name a PM candidate because they are not capable of producing a PM - they've never even attempted it. The only way they can is through horse-trading in Parliament. As for efficiency, what ever the system, it'll still be the same people manning that system. It can be distorted by preying on the same moral deficiencies. On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Thaths <tha...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Kiran K Karthikeyan > <kiran.karthike...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> ITYM *execution*. The House and Senate in the USian system take care > >> of the legislation. > > Yes. And it is the legislative bodies which are pre-occupied with > retaining > > the majority in the gov't. Perhaps I wasn't clear, but the presidential > > system seems more stable. With our current system any small regional > party > > can bring the governement down and maybe even force re-election which > > effectively means an entire year or more wasted, not to mention the > costs. > > Aren't the Real Executive in the Westminister system - the > bureaucracies in Whitehall and South Block - protected from the coming > and goings of MPs to a certain extent? You do have a point about costs > of elections. > > > If this has been discussed elsewhere, please do forward the links if > > possible. I would like to know the arguments against a Presidential > system > > (with or without an electoral college). > > Africa is full of faltering democracies (de facto dictatorships) that > chose the Presidential system. I suspect the Presidential system in a > newly democratic country lends itself handy to strongmen (and they > have all been men). > > Thaths > -- > "You'll have to speak up, I'm wearing a towel." -- Homer J. Simpson > >
