DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRESIDENTIAL AND

PARLIAMENTARY FROM OF GOVERNMENT

There are basically two forms of democratic government systems
– Presidential and Parliamentary. India follows a parliamentary
form of government modelled on Britain’s. Our founding fathers
had strong reasons for adopting this, as opposed to the
presidential system. Apart from the parliamentary and
presidential systems, there can also be a hybrid system
incorporating features of both systems. The chief difference
between these systems is the extent of power separation
between the legislative, the executive and the judiciary. Another
major difference between the presidential and parliamentary
systems is the accountability of the executive to the legislature.
First, we will discuss both forms of government systems
enumerating their merits and drawbacks and then do a
comparison of both the systems.

Presidential System of Government

In a presidential system, the head of the government leads an
executive, that is distinct from the legislature. Here, the head of
the government and the head of the state are one and the same.
Also, a key feature is that the executive is not responsible to the
legislature.
Features of the Presidential System

1. The executive (President) can veto acts by the legislature.

2. The President has a fixed tenure and cannot be removed by
a vote of no-confidence in the legislature.
3. Generally, the President has the power to pardon or
commute judicial sentences awarded to criminals.
4. The President is elected directly by the people or by an
electoral college.

Merits of Presidential System

The advantages of the presidential system are given below:

1
  Separation of powers: Efficiency of administration is
greatly enhanced since the three arms of the government
are independent of each other.
 Expert government: Since the executive need not be
legislators, the President can choose experts in various fields
to head relevant departments or ministries. This will make
sure that people who are capable and knowledgeable form
part of the government.
 Stability: This type of government is stable. Since the term
of the president is fixed and not subject to majority support
in the legislative, he need not worry about losing the
government. There is no danger of a sudden fall of the
government. There is no political pressure on the president
to make decisions.
 Less influence of the party system: Political parties do
not attempt to dislodge the government since the tenure is
fixed.

Demerits of Presidential System

The disadvantages of the presidential system are given below:

 Less responsible executive: Since the legislature has no

hold over the executive and the president, the head of the
government can turn authoritarian.
 Deadlocks between executive and legislature: Since
there is a more strict separation of powers here, there can
be frequent tussles between both arms of the government,
especially if the legislature is not dominated by the
president’s political party. This can lead to an erosion in
efficiency because of wastage of time.
 Rigid government: Presidential systems are often accused
of being rigid. It lacks flexibility.
 Spoils system: The system gives the president sweeping
powers of patronage. Here, he can choose executives as per
his will. This gives rise to the spoils system where people

2
 close to the president (relatives, business associates, etc.)
get roles in the government.

Parliamentary System of Government

India chose a parliamentary form of government primarily
because the constitution-makers were greatly influenced by the
system in England. Another reason the founding fathers saw was
that the parliamentary model would only work to accommodate
the varied and diverse groups within our population. Also, the
strict separation of powers in the presidential system would cause
conflicts between the two branches, the executive and the
legislature, which our newly-independent country could ill-afford.
There are more parliamentary forms of government in the world
than there are presidencies. In this system, the parliament is
generally supreme and the executive is responsible to the
legislature. It is also known as the Cabinet form of government,
and also ‘Responsible Government’.
Features of the parliamentary system

1. Close relationship between the legislature and the

executive: Here, the Prime Minister along with the Council
of Ministers form the executive and the Parliament is the
legislature. The PM and the ministers are elected from the
members of parliament, implying that the executive
emerges out of the legislature.
2. Executive responsible to the legislature: The executive
is responsible to the legislature. There is a collective
responsibility, that is, each minister’s responsibility is the
responsibility of the whole Council.
3. Dual executive: There are two executives – the real
executive and the titular executive. The nominal executive is
the head of state (president or monarch) while the real

3
 executive is the Prime Minister, who is the head of
government.
4. Secrecy of procedure: A prerequisite of this form of
government is that cabinet proceedings are secret and not
meant to be divulged to the public.
5. Leadership of the Prime Minister: The leader of this form
of government is the Prime Minister. Generally, the leader of
the party that wins a majority in the lower house is
appointed as the PM.
6. Bicameral Legislature: Most parliamentary democracies
follow bicameral legislature.
7. No fixed tenure: The term of the government depends on
its majority support in the lower house. If the government
does not win a vote of no confidence, the council of ministers
has to resign. Elections will be held and a new government is
formed.
Although India follows this system chiefly influenced by the British
model, there are a few differences between the Indian and British
systems. They are:

 In India, the PM can be from either the Rajya Sabha or the

Lok Sabha. In Britain, the PM will always be from the lower
house, the House of Commons.
 In Britain, the speaker once appointed, formally resigns from
his/her political party. In India, the speaker continues to be a
member of his/her party though he/she is expected to be
impartial in the proceedings.
 The concept of a shadow cabinet is absent in India. In
Britain, the opposition forms a shadow cabinet that
scrutinises the actions and policies of the government. It also
offers alternative programmes.

Merits of Parliamentary System

The advantages of the parliamentary system are as follows:

4
  Better coordination between the executive and the
legislature: Since the executive is a part of the legislature,
and generally the majority of the legislature support the
government, it is easier to pass laws and implement them.
 Prevents authoritarianism: Since the executive is
responsible to the legislature, and can vote it out in a motion
of no confidence, there is no authoritarianism. Also, unlike
the presidential system, power is not concentrated in one
hand.
 Responsible government: The members of the legislature
can ask questions and discuss matters of public interest and
put pressure on the government. The parliament can check
the activities of the executive.
 Representing diverse groups: In this system, the
parliament offers representation to diverse groups of the
country. This is especially important for a country like India.
 Flexibility: There is flexibility in the system as the PM can
be changed easily if needed. During the Second World War,
the British PM Neville Chamberlain was replaced by Winston
Churchill. This is unlike the presidential system where he/she
can be replaced only after the entire term or in case of
impeachment/incapacity.

Demerits of Parliamentary System

The disadvantages of the parliamentary system are as follows:

 No separation of powers: Since there is no genuine

separation of powers, the legislature cannot always hold the
executive responsible. This is especially true if the
government has a good majority in the house. Also, because
of anti-defection rules, legislators cannot exercise their free
will and vote as per their understanding and opinions. They
have to follow the party whip.

5
  Unqualified legislators: The system creates legislators
whose intention is to enter the executive only. They are
largely unqualified to legislate.
 Instability: Since the governments sustain only as long as
they can prove a majority in the house, there is instability if
there is no single-largest party after the elections. Coalition
governments are generally quite unstable and short-lived.
Because of this, the executive has to focus on how to stay in
power rather than worry about the state of affairs/welfare of
the people.
 Ministers: The executive should belong to the ruling party.
This rules out the hiring of industry experts for the job.
 Failure to take a prompt decision: Since there is no fixed
tenure enjoyed by the Council of Ministers, it often hesitates
from taking bold and long-term policy decisions.
 Party politics: Party politics is more evident in the
parliamentary system where partisan interests drive
politicians more than national interests.
 Control by the bureaucracy: Civil servants exercise a lot
of power. They advise the ministers on various matters and
are also not responsible to the legislature.

Comparison of Presidential and Parliamentary Systems

Basis Parliamentary Presidential
Executive Dual Single
Accountability Executive Executive not
accountable to accountable
legislature to legislature
Ministers Only from People outside
among MPs the legislature
can be
appointed
Dissolution of PM can dissolve President

6
lower house before the cannot
expiry of the dissolve
term
Tenure Not fixed Fixed

7
Majority of the developed states are ruling their states with the
Presidential form of government. The prime example is United
States of America, Russia, China, France etc. The parliamentary
system is mostly used in third world countries. The Presidential
system or parliamentarian system is ways to run the democratic
system. Specifically discussing the form of government and
system to run that government in Pakistan, it is the parliamentary
system. The advantages of the Parliamentary system are that
legislation can be done easily as the parliament has the mandate
of people to pass it. Whereas In a presidential system, the
executive is often chosen independently from the legislature.
In a parliamentary system, with a collegial executive,
power is more divided. It can also be argued that power is
more evenly spread out in the power structure of
parliamentarianism In case of Pakistan there is
parliamentarian system whereas the system belongs to
two houses, the upper house and lower house known as
the senate and national assembly respectively.
Analyzing the post-Musharaf era, the parliamentary system has
been endorsed in the political club of Pakistan. In the last years of
Pakistan Peopleâ™s Party, the then President Asif Ali Zardari
dissolve the extra presidential powers which were embedded in
the article 90 and article 52B of the constitution of 1973. Now in
the current government of PML (N), the position of president is
just a cog in the wheel. The whole 18th amendment took the
power from the president to dissolve the assemblies, unilaterally,
turning Pakistan from a semi-presidential to a parliamentary
republic. The whole amendment was done to restore the political
stability in Pakistan. Whenever there is a structural change it
comes with positive and negative outputs. The only ease after
dissolving powers of the president of Pakistan was devolution of
power in both upper and lower houses. Another dilemma which is
being faced by the 18th amendment was the sharing of power
between both houses. Hypothetically if a bill passed in the

8
national assembly and got rejected in the Senate, it again
bypasses the authority of Senate as National assembly have more
representatives than the Senate. Logically it is absurd, upper
house (Senate) means that it has more power than National
Assembly (lower house) but in practice, National Assembly enjoys
more powers than the Senate.
A recent example is of the Ex-Prime Minister Mian Muhammad
Nawaz Sharif as he was disqualified for being the Prime Minister
but National Assembly paves the way for him to be selected as
party president. National Assembly passed the Elections Bill 2017
which gave another chance to Nawaz Sharif for being re-elected
as chairman of his own party, which was endorsed by President
Mamnoon Hussain.
Such amendments actually shredded the fundamental
fabric of the constitution of Pakistan although the whole
fiasco ended up when Judiciary jumped in. Analyzing the
positive aspects of devolution of power and
parliamentarian system, the power is now bifurcated in
both houses which somehow equally represent the people
of Pakistan.
Analyzing both systems, the Presidential system is far better than
for Pakistan rather than the parliamentarian system. In the
parliamentarian system, there is a concept that who so ever
province will be having more population will form the
government. Making it simple, in context of Pakistan whoever will
win from Punjab will form his government. PML (N) is the prime
example of it. Whereas the National Finance Commission Award is
another blessing with disguise. In political structure of Pakistan, it
is the debate that initiated right after the crafting of NFC Award in
1974. Some argue that NFC award should be divided by the
population, whereas some reiterated that NFC award should be
dealt on the basis of resources and some contend this view and
demands that NFC award should be divided on revenue
generation. For instance Karachi is generating 80% of revenue

9
hence major chunk of the budget should be invested in Karachi.
These are the predicaments of the parliamentarian system in
Pakistan.
In a holistic view, the federation always runs on three vital
elements, Confidence, Representation and trust. Trust is
for ensuring the political parties that they are eligible to
run the state, representation is to fulfil the demands of
people that they are represented and confidence is in the
institutions so they can sustain the system.
Whereas all these things are present in the Presenditial system.
Although major reforms are required for the Presidential system
in Pakistan. Presidents should be the sole man with supreme
authority and he should be sharing the power with Senate only.
Whereas the Senate representatives should be selected by the
General Elections. Every state should be having an equal number
of seats so the representation should be on an equality. When all
the senators would have been selected then there should be a
general election through which President should be selected for
the nation of Pakistan. This equal representation will sort out the
issue of NFC and would have sustained all those separatist
movements who are turning the nation into faltering and fumbling
disposition. Moreover, when there would be equality in the
provinces, Punajbis would not be considered a threat to
Pashtoons, there will be no rift between Pashtoons and Balochis
and Urdu speaking people would not be called and cornered as
Migrants of Pakistan. The ethnic political culture is devastating for
Pakistan whereas it was planted in Pakistan since its inception.
These reforms should be followed in order to make Pakistan more
progressive and sustained.

10