Would you recommend a new nation adopt a presidential or parliamentary system of government in the early 21st century

0 Comment

One of the good consequences of this phenomenon is that people have stopped taking their political systems for granted and have begun to think of the merits and demerits of parliamentary and presidential forms of government. This spirit of questioning can be seen even in fictional representations of the nation that question the validity of the very concept like The Shadow Lines (Ghosh 2000).There are also theorists who disagree with the very idea of difference between these two very different forms of government. For instance, the political thinker Juan J. Linz, in his article, Presidential or parliamentary democracy: Does it make a difference? talks of the differences that do not make a change at the level of the grassroots (1994). The failure of democracies to fulfill the aspirations of people in different nation states is a cause for worry. This does not however, mean that the very idea is dropped. This needs to be the case as a better alternative is unavailable and according to most political thinkers, impossible. The natural status that democracy has been accorded may be the reason for this. however, whether it is parliamentary or presidential democracy that is good for a single nation or all nations is a question that remains unanswered. To propose any one form of government as a one-stop solution would be a mistake. This is primarily a consequence of the fact that every single nation is different from the other and requires different forms of governments. This paper shall look at four countries- the United States of America, the United Kingdom, India and Sri Lanka. These countries represent different social and political landscapes and also different forms of government. While the United States of America follows a presidential form of governance, India and the United Kingdom are followers of the parliamentary form of government. Sri Lanka has been