Answer:
♤ The American constitution envisages a strict separation of powers where the executive and the legislature have no overlap. The President in USA, appoints his own staff/council of ministers and does not have anything to do with the legislature unlike India and is not responsible to the legislature like India. But in Indian system, the executive comes from the party, which has the majority in the Lok Sabha. Therefore meaning that the Council of ministers draws members from the legislature thereby diluting the strict watertight compartments between the executive and the legislature.
♤ The reason why our founding fathers did not adopt a strict separation of legislature and executive is because it could cause unnecessary conflict between the two organs of the government, which our infant democracy could ill-afford.
♤ This system has served our country well since independence. Firstly, there is no scope for deadlocks between the executive and the legislature as can be the case with the American system. If the President belongs to a party, which doesn’t holds majority in the Congress than there is a possibility of a deadlock if the President and the Congress don’t agree on that issue. But in Indian system the executive comes from the party, which has the majority in Lok Sabha. Hence, for important bills like money bills there is no scope for deadlock.
♤ Secondly, a majority in the Lok Sabha doesn’t give a free hand to the executive. The Rajya Sabha also functions as another check on the power of the executive. Hence, in our system there is cooperation between legislature and the executive as well as checks and balances on both the organs.
♤ Going forward, we must strengthen our parliamentary processes. Most bills must be passed through debates and discussion rather than the ruling party forcing them through the Parliament.
♤ The executive should be held accountable for its actions through various motions, question hour etc. The spirit of cooperation between the two organs must be recognized and embraced.