Merits and demerits of parliamentary form of government.
By swatee shukla
HARMONY BETWEEN EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATURE: In a parliamentary form of government there is close harmony and cooperation between the executive and legislature. As ministers belong to the ruling party or parties enjoying majority support in the legislature, they do not face much difficulty in
getting the support and approval of the legislature for the policies or program of the government. There is thus less confrontation between the executive and legislature. The passing of amending of acts becomes easy.
RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT: parliamentary system establish a responsible government. The ministers are responsible to the Parliament for all their acts of omission or commission. The parliamentary exercises control over the ministers through various devices like question hour, discussion, adjournment, motion, no-confidence motion, etc. This is also an important feature of FLEXIBILITY: There is a lot of flexibility in the parliamentary form of government to cope with changing situations and even emergencies. The system, being flexible, can easily adapt itself to any new reality. One cabinet may be replaced by a new one without much controversy to tackle any such situation. As Neville Chamberlain failed to lead Britain in word war II , he was replaced by Churchill as the prime minister of Britain.
RESPONSIVE TO PUBLIC OPINION: In parliamentary government, ministers
try to act according to the wishes of the people, because they are related to the majority
party & it becomes their duty to fulfill their promises given by their party to the
people at the time of elections. If the ministers fail to fulfill those promises, there
the party faces great difficulty winning the elections again.
THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT BECOME AUTOCRATIC: In the Parliamentary government, the executive cannot become autocratic, because the government is always responsible to the Parliament. Parliament can remove the government by a no-confidence motion. Serious allegations are leveled against the autocratic ministers and members of Parliament, or the opposition parties demand judicial probe against them: THE HEAD OF STATE GIVES IMPARTIAL ADVICE: In parliamentary government, the head of state, President, king, or governor -General is completely impartial because he is not related to any political party . All parties pay due respect to the president. The prime minister is the leader of majority party, but he needs impartial advice to run the administration and the best advice can be given by the head of state.
UNSTABLE GOVERNMENT: the government is not very stable in nature and it is likely that but would not be able to complete its tenure. The ministers are entirely dependent on the whims and fancies of the majority legislators for their survival and continuity. The government can become in a matter of few minutes by the non-separation of powers. In the view of Montesquieu, such a combination of
powers would end individual liberty and result in tyranny.
FAILURE TO TAKE PROMPT ACTION: since the tenure of the council of ministers is not fixed, hence they are not able to take any long-term bold policy. This in turn can lead to an unstable government in its due course of time. The coalition partners keep fighting all the time and hence are not able to take any kind of bold decision. The problem is aggravated during any emergency crisis for instance a war when no one can take decisive action.