Which Nation has your ideal governing system?

First Previous

Page

Frequent Posters

Rehanism

@Rehanism

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 13 years ago

#11

I prefer Presidential form of Government so I would say US is an ideal example. In Parliamentary system power is more divided. This might be a boon for a homogeneous society but in India's context, this means compromise on the national interest in favour of regional, sectarian and communal interests. Added to that if its a multi-party coalition then bureaucratic corruption is bound to seep in.

Quote

Rehanism

@Rehanism

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 13 years ago

#12

Originally posted by: misterbates
A nation that practices capital punishment

Absolutely...Like This One..

Taliban - The Ideal Governing System..😳

Edited by Rehanism - 13 years ago

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

180506

Hibernated

Posted: 13 years ago

#13

Originally posted by: Rehanism
I prefer Presidential form of Government so I would say US is an ideal example. In Parliamentary system power is more divided. This might be a boon for a homogeneous society but in India's context, this means compromise on the national interest in favour of regional, sectarian and communal interests. Added to that if its a multi-party coalition then bureaucratic corruption is bound to seep in.

The presidential system has many checks and balances; which work out better if one wants to prevent too much power in the hands of a leader.

As an aside, I'd like to point out how ironic it is that The President of the United States is often said to be the "Most powerful man/person" on the planet. It is grossley and technically incorrect. The president can only do so much as his senate allows; Obama for instance, has often had his hands tied behind is back due to the Check and Balance system; where they opposition holds just as much power if not more as the Governing Party- in his case, the almost 4 years he has been in Office, not much as gone through as every attempt he makes is severd at the knees.

On the other hand, the Parlimentaty system with the FPTP voting system allows for a leader to have power, make changes as his voters wish; without much hinderence. The only issue would be that the PM has tooo much power in this instance: BUT the Check would be that the PM is an ELECTED official; and if there is a recall legislation in the Nation voters can Recall the MP/Leader (if it is a dual executive) to get their points accross.

I think the presidential system in the United States gives tooo much power to the Cadre Party (although both the Republicans and Democrates are technically Cadre Parties)- the Republicans are historically the more long term ones; and till this day even when not in power hold large amounts of tort; the check and Balance system in this instance is more of a hinderence then a help.

Quote

Rehanism

@Rehanism

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 13 years ago

#14

Originally posted by: reeha...k
The presidential system has many checks and balances; which work out better if one wants to prevent too much power in the hands of a leader.
As an aside, I'd like to point out how ironic it is that The President of the United States is often said to be the "Most powerful man/person" on the planet. It is grossley and technically incorrect. The president can only do so much as his senate allows; Obama for instance, has often had his hands tied behind is back due to the Check and Balance system; where they opposition holds just as much power if not more as the Governing Party- in his case, the almost 4 years he has been in Office, not much as gone through as every attempt he makes is severd at the knees.

On the other hand, the Parlimentaty system with the FPTP voting system allows for a leader to have power, make changes as his voters wish; without much hinderence. The only issue would be that the PM has tooo much power in this instance: BUT the Check would be that the PM is an ELECTED official; and if there is a recall legislation in the Nation voters can Recall the MP/Leader (if it is a dual executive) to get their points accross.

I think the presidential system in the United States gives tooo much power to the Cadre Party (although both the Republicans and Democrates are technically Cadre Parties)- the Republicans are historically the more long term ones; and till this day even when not in power hold large amounts of tort; the check and Balance system in this instance is more of a hinderence then a help.

That is true, but you need to consider the fact that the sort of society in India is not the same as US. India is highly pluralistic society with deep rooted communal and caste politics and the party in power needs to appease all sorts of communal interests to remain in power and often this requires them to bend before communal leaders and other smaller parties of the coalition at the cost of the basic structure of the Constitution. I do not foresee a government, in near future, which might be formed with single majority. So in that case I would want the Head of the Government to have a bit more independence in execution.

I think in India's case the Checks and Balance system would be quite effective as would create an efficient stability among President, Legislative and Judiciary. While the President may have Veto powers but that Presidential Veto itself can be nullified with a two-third majority ruling.

Edited by Rehanism - 13 years ago

Quote

180506

Hibernated

Posted: 13 years ago

#15

To be honest, I'm not very familiar with India's system (I think they are Semi-Presidential, no?)

In Canada we have the Parlimentary system: of a Federation.

A Bicameral Chamber; and A Duel Executive; 308 Seats in the House of Commons, and 100 something (Can't remember now) in the Senate. With the First -Past the Post voting system 308 MPs are elected from accross the nation (thats with a population of just 36 million) The Party with the most seats forms the Minority/Majority Government; and we move forward.

How does it work in India? It is such a large country both in geography and population, I'm wondering how efficient the system is; and which party dominates historically?

Quote

Rehanism

@Rehanism

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 13 years ago

#16

Originally posted by: reeha...k
To be honest, I'm not very familiar with India's system (I think they are Semi-Presidential, no?)

In Canada we have the Parlimentary system: of a Federation.

A Bicameral Chamber; and A Duel Executive; 308 Seats in the House of Commons, and 100 something (Can't remember now) in the Senate. With the First -Past the Post voting system 308 MPs are elected from accross the nation (thats with a population of just 36 million) The Party with the most seats forms the Minority/Majority Government; and we move forward.

How does it work in India? It is such a large country both in geography and population, I'm wondering how efficient the system is; and which party dominates historically?

India too has a Westminister Parliamentary System with Bicameral Legislature and separate judiciary. President is the nominal and honorary head of State and Prime Minister is the Executive head. Parliament (or Sangsad) consists of 545 (543 directly elected + 2 nominated) members of lower house, Lok Sabha, and 250 members of upper house, Rajya Sabha. Indian National Congress has traditionally been single major party for most of the period since independence. The other major party is Bharatiya Janata Party which rose into prominence in late 80s.

But since 80s, there have been a trend of coalition governments - largely due to rise of several smaller regional parties. So in present scenarios, the government in Power comprises a leading party (say Congress or BJP) and a number of other smaller but notably influential regional/national parties in alliance. If these parties withdraw their support over any issue there's a fair chance that assembly might be dissolved and fresh elections must be held. Parties might even choose to support/oppose the Government, while remaining outside ruling/opposing alliance. The Left wing parties mostly fall into this category. The problem is, to maintain this multi-party alliance the leading party needs to keep these smaller parties (many of whom claim to represent minorities/downtrodden castes and religious sects) appeased at all costs - which might include sacrificing the interest of the state and its constitutional ideas like secularism and equality.

Quote

Arwen11

@Arwen11

Sparkler

+ 4

Posted: 13 years ago

#17

Hail Captain! *salutes*

Sorry 😳😆 U guys carry on 😛 Just feel like doing stupid/lame things right now 😆

One question though .. Isn't the US system hampered by the fact that the President and Cabinet are pretty much novices when it comes to international politics? With the Westminster system, the PM is almost always someone who had held some sort of ministerial post and hence a little experience when it comes to international relations ...

BUT i agree.. Westminster system doesn't work here in sub continent .. the regional and sectarian politics is great hindrance to a true democracy ... MPs worry more about winning their seats in re elections ... All i have to do is look at the state of Pakistan Railways during the military coup and the state of affairs now to know that some sort of change should be made in the Pakistani system.

Edited by Arwen. - 13 years ago

Quote

Summer3

@Summer3

Trailblazer

+ 2

Posted: 13 years ago

#18

I do not know which is the best system but the Singapore Ministers and the Hightest Paid in the whole world.

Govt claims that to get good people the have to pay market rates.

But more money also means it attracts all and sundry.

But it does also keeps corruption in check.

Wikipedia Quote:

The Cabinet of Singapore forms the Government (executive branch) of Singapore together with the President of Singapore. It is led by the Prime Minister of Singapore who is the head of government. The Prime Minister is a Member of Parliament appointed by the President who selects a person that in his or her view is likely to command the confidence of a majority of the Parliament of Singapore. The other members of the Cabinet are Ministers who are Members of Parliament appointed by the President on the Prime Minister's advice. Cabinet members are prohibited from holding any office of profit and from actively engaging in any commercial enterprise.

The Cabinet generally directs and controls the Government and is collectively responsible to Parliament. It also has significant influence over lawmaking. Ministers may be designated by the Prime Minister to be in charge of particular ministries, or as Ministers in the Prime Minister's Office. Singapore's ministers are among the best paid in the world. As of January 2009, the Prime Minister's annual salary was S$3.04 million, while the pay of ministerial-grade officers was $1.57 million.

Quote

496295

Suspended

Posted: 13 years ago

#19

Originally posted by: Prometeus

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realise that it bears a very close resemblance to the first...😃😉

You know, yu reminded me something about Gandhiji's quote about the British Parliament being like a Barren Woman and a Prostitute.😆