Is India a Parliamentary Democracy or Executive Democracy?

Is India a Parliamentary Democracy or Executive Democracy?

News: The new parliament building was inaugurated with much celebrations and raised controversy as well.

Background:
 The controversy over the exclusion of the President of India – the formal head of the executive – from the inauguration.
 The symbolism around the Sengol – was originally used to signify the transfer of power between Chola rulers.

What is Parliamentary Democracy? What are its features?
 It is a system of government in which citizens elect representatives to a legislative parliament to make the necessary laws and decisions for the country. It directly represents the people.
 The features of Parliamentary form of democracy include Majority party rule, Prime Minister acts as center of power, Executive forms part of legislature, collective responsibility, Nominal and real head, Bicameral legislature, Opposition etc.

What are issues faced by Parliament?
 Parliament sits for fewer and fewer days in a year and Bills are passed with minimal or no deliberation.
 The ordinances from President are the new normal if not dominant form of law-making.
 The power rests with executive.
 Fewer bills are referred to the Parliamentary committees for scrutiny.

What are various safeguards in Parliamentary democracy against executive dominance?
 To enact its agenda, the executive must command a majority in Parliament. This opens the space for intraparty dissent. It provides an opportunity for ruling party parliamentarians other than cabinet members to exercise a check over the executive.
 The Opposition itself is granted certain rights in Parliament, and certain limited control over parliamentary proceedings.
 Certain parliamentary democracies adopt bicameralism. A second “Upper House” acts as a revising chamber, where interests of those other than majority are represented.
 The Speaker acts a neutral and independent authority, represents the interests of Parliament against the executive.

How have the above safeguards been diluted?
 The possibility of intra-party dissent within Parliament has been curtailed by the “anti-defection law”. The Tenth Schedule penalises disobedience of the party whip with disqualification from the House.
 The 10th Schedule has failed to limit horse trading and floor-crossing. It has rather strengthened the hand of party leadership.
 Intra-party dissent is not possible when the price is disqualification from Parliament.
 The Speaker is not required to give up membership of their political party, and is not constitutionally obligated to act impartially. The speaker thus acts in a partisan manner which is reflected in his proceedings of the house and control over other parliamentarians.
 When the ruling party wishes to avoid effective scrutiny in the Rajya Sabha over Bills, the Speaker simply classifies the Bill as a “money bill” as was seen in the case of the Aadhaar Act.

How has constitutional design impacted the deliberations of Parliament?
 The only effective check upon the executive is fractured mandate and coalition government. In such a scenario, coalition partners can exercise checks upon the executive in Parliament.
 The quality of parliamentary deliberations has declined. The situation is akin to presidential systems with strong executives, but without the checks and balances.
 If India wants to return to parliamentarianism, necessary constitutional changes and reforms should form the ethos of the new Parliament.