Answer:

India already had some experience of running the parliamentary system under the Acts of 1919 and 1935. This experience had shown that in the parliamentary system, the executive can be effectively controlled by the representatives of the people. Thus, accountability was a given a greater emphasis than stability of Presidential system. It was because of the pluralistic nature of our society which demanded giving representation to diverse sections and regions and include majority of people into political stream.

It put an emphasis on institution building rather than a form in which the executive power was vested in a single individual.

Its inclusiveness and accommodativeness occurs at two levels: At the legislative level where the MPs are representative of diversity and at the level of CoM as well. Further, an issue based opposition is often heard and its views accommodated in governance.

There are arguments in favour of Presidential System:

First, it will make political parties to be more democratic and careful in selecting a candidate. They will have to choose their best candidate for a head-to-head contest.

Second, the voters will know their candidates intimately. This will increase accountability of the candidates.

Third, the president will be fully in charge of the executive. He will be able to attract the best and brightest to his cabinet, irrespective of their political affiliations.

Fourthly, our democratic institutions have matured and evolved and public is more conscious today, hence, we can switch to new system.

However, parliamentary form of government apart from being pluralistic, accommodative and inclusive offers following benefits:

Smooth Functioning- Close link between executive and legislature avoids conflict between the two organs of government.

Open Administration- The executive remains vigilant and follows propriety to secure its electoral prospects and confidence of Parliament.

Financial Accountability: Government has to seek financial grants by Parliament and the audit of its expenditure by CAG/PAC. In the light of its suitability to Indian context Swaran Singh Commission, NCRWC etc. have recommended its continuity.

Although, several lacunae in the system are visible, like declining representativeness, efficiency and ethos of MPs, corruption, instability owing to coalition politics, weakness of opposition etc. yet it could be said that the system needs a major overhaul but not a switch.

.