Forms of Government Online Test 11th Political Science Lesson 6 Questions in English

The Government is the main agency of the state. It comprises several members belonging to political and administrative wings. It serves as the instrument for delegation and execution of the state policies for the welfare of the people. It formulates expresses and realises the will of the state. It exercises certain legislative, executive and judicial powers based on the constitution and the laws. There are three organs in government, namely – Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. These organs carry out the activities of the state. Governments are classified under Unitary, Federal, Parliamentary and Presidential forms.

For an instance before writing his monumental work politics Aristotle studied 158 constitutions. Montesque studied the working of the British constitution and came to the conclusion that the stability of British constitution was due to the adherence to the principle of separation of powers.

Legal-Institutional Approach: Scholars like Bentham, Austin and Dicey adopted this approach and his approach focuses on formal legal structure of political institutions. They helped to develop certain theories which explain the relationship and interconnection between government and Law. Bentham is the distinguished legal reformer in England Likewise Austin provided a legal base to sovereignty which is indivisible, inalienable and absolute. A.V.Dicey judged the government on the basis of law and its applicability to different branches of government.

Early Montesque proposed a threefold division of Government namely Republican, Monarchical and Despotic government Republican Government: “People possess the sovereign Power”. Monarchical Government: “Rule by one single person and governed by fixed and established laws”. Despotic government: “Rule by one single person but there is no fixed rule for governance, everything conducted by his will. According to Montesque the survival of the government depends on “persistence in given society of that particular spirit which is characteristic of the form”

Government refers to the executive functions of the state. It denotes a body having authority to make and enforce laws applicable to the civil, corporate, religious, academic or other groups. The term Government is derived from an old French word “governor”, derived from Latin word “gubernare” which means to direct, rule, guide, govern.

Monarchy is the oldest form of government in the United Kingdom. In a monarchy, a king or queen is the Head of State. The British monarchy is known as a constitutional monarchy. This means that, while The Sovereign is Head of State, the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament.

Aristotle identified a combination of two criteria to classify the constitution that he analysed. Criteria One: Number of People having Power – One, Few, Many; Thus he distinguished between Monarchy, Aristocracy and Polity Criteria Two: To whose interest the Government works for – Working in General Interest, Working in Personal Interest. The respective perverted forms of the three types are Tyranny, Oligarchy and Democracy.

A unitary system of government, or unitary state, is a sovereign state governed as a single entity. The central government is supreme, and the administrative divisions exercise only powers that the central government has delegated to them. Even in a Unitary form of Government there might be a lot of decentralization of authority but we cannot claim it as a federal system.

England, France, Japan, Sri Lanka are examples of Unitary Form of governments. In a Unitary form of government all authority and power vested in a single centre whereas in a federal form of government authority and power distributed between centre and the constituent units.

Merits of Unitary Form of Government Suitable for small countries. There is no conflict of authority and responsibility. A unitary government will make prompt decisions and take speedy action. A unitary government is less expensive. Amendments to the constitution are easy. There is unity, uniformity of law, policy and administration. De-Merits of Unitary Form Government It is not suitable for big countries. The central government will have to tackle so many complex problems that lead to administrative delay. The central government will not concentrate on local problems, local interest and initiative. The concentration of powers may pave way for the despotism of the central government.

Some leading political thinkers defined unitary form of government as follows: A.V. DICEY: “Habitual exercise of supreme legislative authority is by one central power” GARNER: “Where the whole power of government is conferred by the constitution upon a single central organ” C.F. STRONG: “Two important qualities of the Unitary Government”. They are:- The supremacy of the central government, The absence of the subsidiary sovereign bodies. The distinction between subsidiary law-making bodies and subsidiary sovereign bodies is the distinction between the local authorities in a unitary state and constituent units in a federal state.

The division of powers is in favour of the Centre and highly inequitable from the federal angle. Firstly, the Union List contains more subjects than the State List. Secondly, the more important subjects have been included in the Union List. Thirdly, the Centre has overriding authority over the Concurrent List. Finally, the residuary powers have also been left with the Centre, while in the US, they are vested in the states. Thus, the Constitution has made the Centre very strong.

Unlike in other federations, the states in India have no right to territorial integrity. The Parliament can by unilateral action change the area, boundaries or name of any state.

Usually, in a federation, the states have the right to frame their own Constitution separate from that of the Centre. In India, on the contrary, no such power is given to the states. The Constitution of India embodies not only the Constitution of the Centre but also those of the states. Both the Centre and the states must operate within this single frame. The only exception in this regard is the case of Jammu and Kashmir which has its own (state) Constitution. (Not sure, because of partition of J&k and Ladakh)

The bulk of the Constitution can be amended by the unilateral action of the Parliament, either by simple majority or by special majority. Further, the power to initiate an amendment to the Constitution lies only with the Centre. In India states don’t have the right to propose amendment unlike in U.S.A

In a federation states are given with equal representation with regard to upper house, but in India states are not given with equal representation with regard to Rajya Sabha.

During an emergency, the Central government becomes all powerful and the states go into the total control of the Centre. It converts the federal structure into a unitary one without a formal amendment of the Constitution. This kind of transformation is not found in any other federation.

India adopted the system of single citizenship. There is only Indian Citizenship and no separate state citizenship. All citizens irrespective of the state in which they are born or reside enjoy the same rights all over the country. The other federal states like US, Switzerland and Australia have dual citizenship, that is, national citizenship as well as state citizenship.

Single Integrated Judiciary means that all the courts of India are in a hierarchical order from the lower courts to the Supreme Court of India. Courts in India have Original and Appellate Jurisdiction.

The governor of a state is not elected but appointed by the president and holds office at the pleasure of the president. He is the head of the executive in the state. He has powers like Legislature, Executive Judicial and emergency powers.

The Constitution divided the powers between the Centre and the states in terms of the Union List, State List and Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule.

The classification of governments into unitary and federal is based on the nature of relations between the national government and the regional governments A federal government is one in which powers are divided between the national government and the regional governments by the Constitution itself and both operate in their respective jurisdictions independently. In a federal model, the national government is known as the Federal government or the Central government or the Union government and the regional government is known as the state government or the provincial government. The Indian Constitution establishes a dual polity consisting the Union at the Centre and the states at the periphery. Each is endowed with sovereign powers to be exercised in the field assigned to them respectively by the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The laws are enacted by the Centre and the states must confirm to its provisions

Amendment of the Constitution in India is by a procedure of 2/3rd majority in each of the house and laws cannot be easily changed by any ruling party.

The Judiciary is separated from the Executive and Legislature. The Judiciary given its national and state level jurisdictions, exercises Original, Appellate and Judicial Review functions. It functions independently of the Executive and Legislature. Bicameralism provides for a two-house legislature that has an Upper chamber and Lower chamber. With the Lower house having powers of enacting financial legislation.

Modern democratic governments are classified into parliamentary and presidential on the basis of nature of relations between the executive and the legislative organs of the government.

The parliamentary system of government is the one in which the executive is responsible to the legislature for its policies and acts. The presidential system of government, on the other hand, is one in which the executive is not responsible to the legislature for its policies and acts, and is constitutionally independent of the legislature in respect of its term of office.

The parliamentary government is also known as cabinet government or responsible government or Westminster model of government and is prevalent in Britain, Japan, Canada, India among others.

Ivor Jennings called the parliamentary system as ‘cabinet system’ because the cabinet is the nucleus of power in a parliamentary system. The parliamentary government is also known as ‘responsible government’ as the cabinet (the real executive) is accountable to the Parliament and stays in office so long as it enjoys the latter’s confidence. It is described as ‘Westminster model of government’ after the location of the British Parliament, where the parliamentary system originated. In the past, the British constitutional and political experts described the Prime Minister as ‘primus inter pares’ (first among equals) in relation to the cabinet. In the recent period, the Prime Minister’s power, influence and position have increased significantly vis-a-vis the cabinet. He has come to play a ‘dominant’ role in the British politico-administrative system.

The President is the nominal executive (de jure executive or titular executive) while the Prime Minister is the real executive (de facto executive). Thus, the President is head of the State, while the Prime Minister is head of the government.

The political party which secures majority seats in the Lok Sabha forms the government. The leader of that party is appointed as the Prime Minister by the President; other ministers are appointed by the President on the advice of the prime minister. However, when no single party gets the majority, a coalition of parties may be invited by the President to form the government.

Collective Responsibility is the bedrock principle of parliamentary government. The ministers are collectively responsible to the Parliament. The ministers are members of both the legislature and the executive

The Prime Minister plays the leadership role in this system of government. He is the leader of council of ministers, leader of the Parliament and leader of the party in power. In these capacities, he plays a significant and highly crucial role in the functioning of the government.

The greatest advantage of the parliamentary system is that it ensures harmonious relationship and cooperation between the legislative and executive organs of the government. The executive is a part of the legislature and both are inter-dependent at work. As a result, there is less scope for disputes and conflicts between the two organs. In the parliamentary system establishes a responsible government. The ministers are responsible to the Parliament for all their acts of omission and commission. The Parliament exercises control over the ministers through various devices like question hour, discussions, adjournment motion, no confidence motion, etc.

Under Parliamentary system, the executive authority is vested in a group of individuals (council of ministers) and not in a single person. This dispersal of authority checks the dictatorial tendencies of the executive. Moreover, the executive is responsible to the Parliament and can be removed by a no-confidence motion. In a parliamentary system, it is possible to provide representation to all sections and regions in the government. The prime minister while selecting his minister scan take this factor into consideration.

The parliamentary system does not provide a stable government. There is no guarantee that a government can survive its tenure. The ministers depend on the majority legislators for their continuity and survival in office. A no-confidence motion or political defection or evils of multiparty coalition can make the government unstable. The parliamentary system is not conductive for the formulation and implementation of long-term policies. This is due to the uncertainty of the tenure of the government. A change in the ruling party is usually followed by changes in the policies of the government.

In the parliamentary system, the legislature and the executive are together and inseparable. The cabinet acts as the leader of legislature as well as the executive. Hence, the whole system of government goes against the letter and spirit of the theory of separation of powers.

A switchover to the presidential system is not possible under our present constitutional scheme because of the ‘basic structure’ doctrine propounded by the Supreme Court in 1973 (Kesavananda Bharathi case)which has been accepted by the political class without reservation, except for an abortive attempt during the Emergency by Indira Gandhi’s government to have it overturned. The Constituent Assembly had made an informed choice after considering both the British model and the American model and after Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had drawn up a balance sheet of their merits and demerits. To alter the informed choice made by the Constituent Assembly would violate the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution. I must clarify that I have been a critic of the ‘basic structure’ doctrine.

A presidential system centralises power in one individual unlike the parliamentary system, where the Prime Minister is the first among equals. The surrender to the authority of one individual, as in the presidential system, is dangerous for democracy. The over-centralisation of power in one individual is something we have to guard against. Those who argue in favour of a presidential system often state that the safeguards and checks are in place: that a powerful President can be stalled by a powerful legislature.

The other argument, that it is easier to bring talent to governance in a presidential system, is specious. You can get ‘outside’ talent in a parliamentary system too. Right from C.D. Deshmukh, T.A. Pai, Manmohan Singh, M.G.K. Menon and Raja Ramanna talent has been coming into the parliamentary system with the added safeguard of democratic accountability, because the ‘outsiders’ have to get elected after assuming office. On the other hand, bringing ‘outside’ talent in a presidential system without people being democratically elected would deter people from giving independent advice to the chief executive because they owe their appointment to him/her.

If the legislature is dominated by the same party to which the President belongs, a charismatic President or a “strong President” may prevent any move from the legislature. On the other hand, if the legislature is dominated by a party opposed to the President’s party and decides to checkmate him, it could lead to a stalemate in governance because both the President and the legislature would have democratic legitimacy. A diverse country like India cannot function without consensus-building. This “winner takes it all” approach, which is a necessary consequence of the presidential system, is likely to lead to a situation where the views of an individual can ride roughshod over the interests of different segments

Those who speak in favour of a presidential system have only the Centre in mind. They have not thought of the logical consequence, which is that we will have to move simultaneously to a “gubernatorial” form in the States. A switch at the Centre will also require a change in the States.

For 25 years till 2014, our system has also produced coalition governments which have been obliged to focus more on politics than on policy or performance. It has forced governments to concentrate less on governing than on staying in office, and obliged them to cater to the lowest common denominator of their coalitions, since withdrawal of support can bring governments down. The parliamentary system has distorted the voting preferences of an electorate that knows which individuals it wants but not necessarily which parties or policies.

Our parliamentary system is a perversity only the British could have devised: to vote for a legislature in order to form the executive. It has created a unique breed of legislator, largely unqualified to legislate, who has sought election only in order to wield executive power. There is no genuine separation of powers: the legislature cannot truly hold the executive accountable since the government wields the majority in the House. The parliamentary system does not permit the existence of a legislature distinct from the executive, applying its collective mind freely to the nation’s laws.

Our Rajya Sabha cannot be compared to the U.S. Senate where each state has its own Constitution and has the power to change it. The relationship between the states and the federal government is extraordinary; as is the status of their courts and the manner of appointment of judges. I do not think people have thought about it. Merely stating that a change to the presidential system is needed does not mean much. The Indian debate currently is not focussed on the kind of presidential system envisaged

The Supreme Court has spelt its view on the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution. Giving an opinion is one thing. A judgment is a more carefully considered conclusion. Those who support the presidential system should do their homework when they argue against the parliamentary system. There is also the matter of separation of powers. In the U.S., the President, who is also the Supreme Commander, has the power to veto the Congress. Does India need this? The manner of removing the U.S. President through impeachment is a very complex process. There is also the possibility of aggregating more powers to the President

The present parliamentary system has been tried and tested for nearly 70 years. Rather than changing the system, we should reform thoroughly and cleanse the electoral processes.

On the other hand, there are ideas going around about reforming the electoral processes to make democracy more robust. From limiting expenditure of political parties and deciding the ceiling on the expenditure, to holding simultaneous elections, declaring the results for a combination of booths instead of constituencies — I think it is advisable to debate this and ensure that the gaping loopholes in the electoral processes are speedily plugged.

Reasons for framers of Indian Constitution adopt the Parliamentary Form of Government: Familiarity with the System Preference to More Responsibility Need to Avoid Legislative—Executive Conflicts Nature of Indian Society, India is one of the most heterogeneous States and most complex plural societies in the world. Hence, the Constitution makers adopted the parliamentary system as it offers greater scope for giving representation to various section, interests and regions in the government. This promotes a national spirit among the people and builds audited India.

The Presidential Form of Government is also known as non-responsible or non-parliamentary or fixed executive system of government basically built on the principle of separation of power, and is prevalent in USA, Brazil, Russia, Sri Lanka among others.

The American President is both the head of the State and the head of government. As the head of State, he occupies a ceremonial position. As the head of government, he leads the executive organ of government. The President governs with the help of a cabinet or a smaller body called ‘Kitchen Cabinet’. It is only an advisory body and consists of non-elected departmental secretaries. They are selected and appointed by him, are responsible only to him, and can be removed by him any time

The President is elected by an electoral college for a fixed tenure of four years. He cannot be removed by the Congress except by impeachment for a grave unconstitutional act.

“World Bank - World Development Report 1997: ‘The State In A Changing World’”. The report is devoted to the role and effectiveness of the state: what it should do, how it should do it, and how it can improve in a rapidly changing world. Governments with both centrally-planned and mixed economies are shrinking their market role because of failed state interventions.

Good governance is an indeterminate term used in the international development literature to describe how public institutions conduct public affairs and manage public resources. Governance is “the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented”. “Government” and “governance” are synonyms, both denoting the exercise of authority in an organization, institution or state.

Governance is the exercise of political, economic and administrative authority to manage a nation’s affairs…Governance embraces all of the methods – good and bad– that societies use to distribute power and manage public sources and problems (UNDP, 1997): Governance is the manner in which power is exercised in the management of a country’s social and economic resources for development (ADB, 2000)

The movement from government to governance is not merely a task of creating new institutions but also that of refurbishing old ones. The state has to be strengthened to play a new role. It is also for the civil society to accept that democracy is not going to polls every five years but being vigilant and monitoring institutional performance and holding them accountable throughout these years.

197 Nations agree to phase out AC greenhouse gases. Legally – binding deal to tackle global warming, reduce use of gas 1,000 times worse than CO2.

Developed countries including the US must slash their use of HFCs’ by 10 percent by 2019 from 2011-2013 levels, and then by 85 percent by 2036. A second group of developing countries, including China and Africa nations, are committed to launching the transition in 2024. A reduction of 10 percent compared with 2020-2022 levels should achieved by 2029, to be extended to 80 percent by 2045.

A third group of developing countries, which include India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and Gulf nations, must begin the process in 2028 and reduce emissions by 10 per cent by 2032 from 2024-2026 levels, and them by 85 percent by 2047

In a major step toward curbing global warming, envoys from nearly 200 nations reached and agreement on Saturday to phase out potent greenhouse gases used in refrigerators and air conditioners. Under the amendment to the 1987 Montreal Protocol on protecting the ozone layer, rich countries are to take action sooner than developing nations. The agreement was greeted by applause from exhausted envoys who had worked through the night in the Rwandan capital Kigali to put the final touches on the deal to phase our production and consumption of hydroflurocarons (HFCs). But some representatives voiced regret that countries such as India, Pakistan, and Gulf nations would begin the transition later than others. “It may not be entirely what the islands wanted, but it is a good agreement,” said a representative of the tiny pacific nation of the Marshall Islands. The elimination of HFCs could reduce global warming by 0.5 degrees by 2100, according to a 2015 study.

Swapping HFCs for alternatives such as ammonia, water or gases called hydroflurolefins could prove costly for develop countries with sweltering summer temperatures, such as India. “There are issues of cost, there are issues of technology, there are issues of finances,” said Ajay Narayan Jha of India’s environment and climate change ministry before deal was announced. “We would like to emphasize that any agreement will have to be flexible from one side and not from the other,” he had said.

It is difficult to evaluate the performance of a government with uni-factor analysis; the actual assessment can be done only after considering various aspects of governance, namely Socio, Cultural, Political, Economic, and Environmental factors. To evaluate the performance of a government the following factors can be considered.

Socio Cultural factors to evaluate the performance of a government: Gender Parity Index Religious Freedom Equality Based on caste Protection of religious and Linguistic Minority Rights Gender Budgeting

Political factors Effective functioning of Democracy * Free and fair elections * Corruption free Politics and Administration * Transparency in Administration * Independent Press * Independent Judiciary * Human Rights Economic factors Human Development Index (HDI) * Gross Domestic Product (GDP) * Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) * Growth Vs Development * Equal Distribution of Wealth Environmental factors Sustainable Development Goals * National Action Plan for Climate change(NAPC) * Green Budget * Disaster management

Gross National Happiness is a developing philosophy as well as an “index” which is used to measure the collective happiness in any specific nation. The Concept was first mentioned in the constitution of Bhutan, which was enacted on 18 July 2008. GNH is distinguishable by for example valuing collective happiness as the goal of governance, and by emphasizing harmony with nature and traditional values.

The term “gross national happiness” was coined by the fourth king of Bhutan, Jigme Singye Wangchuck, in the 1970sThe GNH’s central tenants are: “Sustainable and equitable socio-economic development; environmental conservation; preservation and promotion of culture; and good governance”.

NHRC – National Commission for Human Rights NCSC - National Commission for Schedule Castes NCST - National Commission for Schedule Tribes NCW – National Commission for Woman NCPCR - National Commission for Protection of Child Rights

Universal Suffrage. [From Latin suffragium = voting tablet, vote.] The right and privilege of all adults to vote for their representatives.

Unicameral Legislature: A legislature that comprises a single part or chamber. In the USA (early 21st century) only the state of Nebraska has a unicameral legislature. Bicameral Legislature: A legislature that comprises two parts or chambers. The USA Congress is a bicameral legislature; its two chambers are the House of Representatives and the Senate. Compare with unicameral legislature.

Aristocracy: Rule by an upper class Theocracy [From Greek theos = god and krateein = to rule.] Rule by a god, which in practice means rule by a priesthood. No separation of church and state. Compare with aristocracy Totalitarian A regime of command by the government and obedience by the citizens. The regime controls all aspects of political and social life (as in George Orwell’s 1984). In contrast with an authoritarian state, all social and economic institutions are under government control.

Republic: A form of government in which sovereignty rests with the people (or a portion of the people), as opposed to a king or monarch or dictator. This form of Representative Democracy was created by the framers of the US constitution.

Concurrent Powers: Powers held jointly by the national and state governments. Confederal System: A league of independent states, each having essentially sovereign powers. The central government created by such a league has only limited powers over the states. Confederation: A voluntary association of states; usually limits central authority to foreign affairs and is less permanent than a federation. A political system where states or regional governments retain ultimate authority, except for powers expressly delegated to a central government.

Devolution: Transfer of powers from the national or central government to state or local government. This happened in the United Kingdom in the late twentieth century.