The Instigator
SIVAPRASAD
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
yaret-s
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

WILL IT BE BETTER FOR INDIA TO SWITCH OVER TO PRESIDENTIAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/14/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,835 times Debate No: 1798
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

SIVAPRASAD

Pro

PRESIDENTIAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT FOR INDIA
India is developing not because of the political system. India is developing inspite of the political system. With proper and accountable form of governance, India could have by now reached a super power status given the resources and the abilities of the people.
India experimented with parliamentary system of democracy, copied largely from UK. Unfortunately it has not worked for India. India as a nation is deeply divided into several groups with conflicting interests. Indian democracy in practice has not been able to abolish caste system that divides the majority community into groups with conflicting interests despite many laws. Accountability is the major causality in the Indian style of democracy.
The Political parties often give importance to the winning chances based on the group and caste following a candidate has. Even in cabinet formation, caste plays its role, many times in the formation of Cabinet. Caste and communal divide made India into one of the most corrupt nations in the world. Some credible estimates put the annual corruption at 50 Billion dollars.
To fight the twin causes of corruption and caste, may be India need to debate on a presidential form of government on the US model. A strong executive President does not need the support of caste and communal vote banks. He can go ahead with reforms that make the administration more transparent, less corrupt and more account to the citizens and the nation. A powerful and committed, and accountable administration is the need of the hour.
Why not we debate the merits and demerits of presidential form of Government for India?
yaret-s

Con

no i don't think so because i think that it would be better for india if it stay as it is.

they got one leader and if it is a good leader then it is better for india that they let is how it is also india could be very rich if u look back in time of hitler and Mussolini, Mussolini was also the leader in italy and italy had very good they were steps ahead on other country's

but if u take the form of hitler he was leader but the only thing he wants was power and more space for his people or how he said it "Ubermensche".
and to get more space to life he wanted to destroy the faction of "Untermensche"

but in the case of india it is more like mussolinie that is reason i am against it.

;)
Debate Round No. 1
SIVAPRASAD

Pro

Thank you for accepting to debate on the issue that is important for India's future. India is a big and second most populous country in the entire world. India needs a leadership that is accountable, that can submerge the divisions within and make it a strong nation free from corruption, inequities and backwardness.
You will be surprised to note people have different views even on singing the National song 'VANDE MATARAM'
India is the second most populous nation. India needs a leadership that bridges the divide between different castes, communities groups. The politics being played by the politicians are increasing the rifts within the society and the nation. India needs a leader who can be above caste, creed and communal perspectives and truly' keeps people first policy
Is it time for India to switch over to Presidential form of government?? India requires political leader ship with a vision that looks beyond caste, communal and regional politics. Indian political leadership need to focus on good governance that leverages the skills of its people and resources.
Endowed with massive human resource talent as well as enormous natural resources, India could have achieved much more than what it has achieved so far. But unfortunately, India is a country of contradictions. India got nuclear bombs, warships, huge army, vast IT talent and skilled workforce, but India is also place for millions and millions of people who have no access to pure drinking water, proper health care, reasonable shelter and social security. India continues where equality of opportunity on the basis of merit is a far cry. In terms of human development index India still has to do a lot of catching up. India with a billion + population is not even a permanent member of the Security Council which speaks of the failure of the system of governance.
I want to put forth before my friend the complexities India is facing on account of the type of governance that encourages divisions and fails to solve the real issues like poverty, basic needs, decent medical care to its vast population.
One of the factors for the underdevelopment despite vast human and natural resources is the system of governance that the country chose after independence where members of parliament elect the prime minister to head the cabinet. The political parties in India are ever busy in protecting or hijacking the vote banks caring little for good governance. Keeping in power has become the key concern of the political parties instead of giving good governance and bettering the lot of people at large. The system got so much corrupted that only a few competent people enter the political arena. Of late things have much worsened with the coalition governments becoming the order of the day. The political compulsions to remain or gain power often force the political parties into unholy election alliances that are shaky. Governance has been given a go bye. The parliamentary democracy failed to deliver fruits to the population and the bad governance has resulted in the following situations 1. Regional Politics: India stands more divided on regional basis today. There are many parties stoking the regional sentiments and clamoring for further division of the country into more and more states. The ulterior motive of the regional forces is to gain power. For them getting the states divided is more important than bettering the lives of people. Due to political expediency, even larger parties tie up with the regional parties to secure power at the center or in the states though their ideals never match. 2. Caste Politics: Most of the political parties have to survive by playing the caste card in selecting the candidates for the contest as well as nominating the successful candidates to the ministries on the basis of their caste affiliation than any other merit. So caste has become a dividing factor in India and the political parties are compelled to keep the caste primacy in governance there by effecting the quality of governance. 3. Religious Politics: Political parties work over time for winning the confidence of especially minority vote. They feel that playing the religious card and getting votes is much easier than seeking votes on merit. Since they constitute solid vote bank all the parties play the religious card. 4. The conflicting interests of political parties mar the parliamentary proceedings often and time is wasted on end less debates, boycotts, walkouts on any or every issue.
By switching over to Presidential Form of Government, people will know before hand in whose hands their destiny is safe and may vote on the basis of merit of the presidential candidate. With the executive powers in hand, a suitable and competent person can focus on good governance and solving the problems of the people with a vision not impaired by the party politics playing Damocles' sword over his head. With a proper vision, such a President can give right direction to governance, overlooking caste, regional, religious consideration. Presidential candidates can seek votes on the strength of his pole promises and merit. The parliament can act as watch dog and effectively check the abuse of power and ensure good governance. Such form of governance will free the ruling establishment from their focus on surviving in power and may enable the elected person to give good governance. Presidential form of government gives choice to the President to choose his Cabinet on merits instead of the regional, caste or religious basis. Presidential form of government is eminently suited for a large country like India and with the right vision for the President India can soon propel into society of nations to claim its rightful place. Like wise elected governors in the states will free the state governance equally better. Together the union and the states can prosper with the right climate and right policies that are the need of the hour. Effective governance will improve the delivery system of aid to the needy and public spending more accountable. Only when India provides affordable health, pure drinking water and reasonable shelter to its teeming millions and tackles the unemployment problem effectively it qualifies itself for the right place in the comity of nations and to achieve this India needs to switch to a system of governance that bridge the divide within on caste, communal, regional basis and give the population a sense of oneness and improve the lot of the common man. A serious debate need to be started on the issue. Instead of applying balm to a person who suffers daily, is it not better to treat the ailment that cures the symptoms of the disease. With proper governance in force, India can fully realize the human resource and natural resource potential and occupy its due place in the comity of nations.
yaret-s

Con

first thing i want to say that i apriseed that you are my oppenent,
but i stil stand with my point of view and i realy think that if u change the way of ruleing india ther wil be some problems.

and i also think that india can't make this change on their own and htne other country's must help and i guess that will be the united states again just like they helped irak. and also there were problems
Debate Round No. 2
SIVAPRASAD

Pro

I think that India is not Iraq. India is too big for any country to be dictated as to what it should do. India is capable of changing the system on its own. Only the political will is the need of the hour.
I am having some problem in understanding your argument. I thank you for participating in the debate.
yaret-s

Con

u say that india is to big to be dictate but do u think it is easy for a country like that to change the way of rule the people there don't now other ruleing and when it is so big it wil take a long time to change it.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dasuberking 1 year ago
dasuberking
Irrespective of who is winning and who isnt.. firstly is it possible to even implement this system.. can the present system be changed at all?
Posted by mr1234sharingan 2 years ago
mr1234sharingan
before anything else you should first consider this http://www.debate.org... ., presidential system allows checks and balances in power to be controlled and balanced and lets the laws and policies to be finalized or be permanent depending on the national / social issues but this system of checks and balances makes the presidential government less accounting and responsive to its people thus making less affecting in fighting poverty or any other social issues like the Philippines for example
Posted by skullcandy 3 years ago
skullcandy
Hi SivaPrasad

You have presented your argument very eloquently but it seems to me a bit illusory and far away from reality. The main problem with your argument is that you have got the definition of Presidential form of govt. wrong.
So please let me take this opportunity to present a counter argument to the topic. (In favour of Prime-ministerial form of govt.)

I would like to start with defining what Presidential govt. is - A democratic govt. where executive is not accountable to the legislative. It works on the principle of "Separation of Powers". in this type of govt. both the executive and legislatives are elected different unlike India where executives comes from the Parliament

Now I would like to talk about the premise of your argument and tell you why it lacks depth.

1. You say that "India lacks an accountable form of govt." - True
But if you read the definition of presidential form you would see that Accountability in that type of govt. is nil. In India Cabinet is still responsible to the Parliament but that would no longer be the case if India switches over.
2. You say that "India is divided over Caste and Communal Lines" - Absolutely True
But Is switching to Parliamentary form is the Solution - Absolutely Not
Why - Because you will be changing type of govt. not the people of the country. People will still remain divided on the communal issues e.g. Babri Mosque issue
And as I said executive and legislatives will still be elected democratically, they would still use people as vote banks and would try to divide them on communal lines.
3. You say we need a "Powerful and Committed" Executive - True
But Presidential form only give us a Powerful executive and not a Committed one. (Imagine what would happen if Powerful executive is not Committed.
4. Lastly the major weakness of Presidential system is that it can't represent proportionally. It means there can be lets say no Muslim or Christian executive. How do you think Muslims/Christians wou
Posted by U.S_Patriot 9 years ago
U.S_Patriot
Farooq, don't insult America. Honestly, anyone could argue it is good for all it's weak points.

Also, Yaret, honestly, are you even trying to debate?
Posted by C-Mach 9 years ago
C-Mach
India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh used to be just India. Gahndi and Jinnah.
Posted by C-Mach 9 years ago
C-Mach
I am one of the few who do.
Posted by solo 9 years ago
solo
You're right, Faroog. Americans don't really care about India. Americans only care about America and their own Presidential System.

I will have you know that many of us know exactly where India is on the globe though. It's a no-brainer... as it's pretty huge.
Posted by Farooq 9 years ago
Farooq
lol... no one's taking this topic cause everyone's a Yank on this site that couldn't point out India on a globe- let alone critize it's presidnetial system!
Posted by solo 9 years ago
solo
As I understand it, their prince is a homosexual, so great change is coming for India, no matter how you look at it.
Posted by C-Mach 9 years ago
C-Mach
Good idea. The problem with parliaments is that there is no separation of power between executive and legislative: They are one and the same. The parliamentary president, such as in India, France, and Russia, only acts on foreign policy and is commander and chief of the military. The president should be head of government as well, as it has been in United States, Liberia, Belarus (The only European country that uses the full presidential system), etc. In short, it has worked, and worked well.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by C-Mach 7 years ago
C-Mach
SIVAPRASADyaret-sTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Farooq 8 years ago
Farooq
SIVAPRASADyaret-sTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Randomknowledge 9 years ago
Randomknowledge
SIVAPRASADyaret-sTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by yaret-s 9 years ago
yaret-s
SIVAPRASADyaret-sTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03