Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Both India and the United States of America stand as prominent democracies, albeit with distinct historical trajectories and constitutional frameworks. The US, born out of a revolution against colonial rule, established a presidential system rooted in Enlightenment ideals. India, gaining independence from British rule in 1947, adopted a parliamentary system drawing inspiration from various sources, including the British model and its own ancient traditions. While both nations champion democratic values, their operationalization differs significantly. Examining the basic tenets upon which these two political systems are based reveals both commonalities and crucial divergences.
Form of Government and Constitutional Structure
Both India and the USA have written constitutions. However, their forms of government differ significantly. The USA operates under a Presidential system, where the President is both the Head of State and Head of Government, directly elected by an Electoral College. This system emphasizes separation of powers between the Executive, Legislative (Congress – Senate and House of Representatives), and Judicial branches. India, conversely, follows a Parliamentary system, where the President is the Head of State (ceremonial role) and the Prime Minister is the Head of Government, responsible to the Lok Sabha (lower house of Parliament).
Federalism
Both countries adopt a federal structure, but the nature of federalism varies. The US constitution explicitly defines the powers of the federal government and reserves the remaining powers to the states (10th Amendment). This is a ‘dual federalism’ model. India’s federalism, as outlined in Articles 245-251 of the Constitution, is often described as ‘cooperative federalism’ or ‘quasi-federalism’. While the Constitution divides powers between the Union and States through three lists (Union, State, Concurrent), the Union List is significantly larger, and the Union government possesses greater financial powers and a stronger center. The ‘basic structure’ doctrine, established by the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), further strengthens the centralizing tendencies.
Fundamental Rights and Judicial Review
Both constitutions guarantee fundamental rights to citizens. The US Bill of Rights (first ten amendments) protects individual liberties like freedom of speech, religion, and the right to bear arms. India’s Fundamental Rights (Part III of the Constitution) include similar rights, along with provisions for social justice like the abolition of untouchability (Article 17) and equality of opportunity in public employment (Article 16).
Judicial review, the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of laws, is a cornerstone of both systems. The US Supreme Court established this power in Marbury v. Madison (1803). In India, the Supreme Court exercises judicial review under Articles 32 and 226, ensuring the protection of fundamental rights and upholding the constitutional framework. However, the scope of judicial review in India is subject to the ‘basic structure’ doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution in a way that alters its fundamental features.
Separation of Powers
While both systems advocate for separation of powers, the US model is stricter. The President is not a member of the legislature, and ministers are not drawn from the legislature. This creates a clear demarcation of responsibilities. In India, the principle of separation of powers is less rigid. The Prime Minister and Council of Ministers are members of Parliament, blurring the lines between the Executive and Legislature. This leads to greater executive control over the legislature.
Amendability of the Constitution
The US Constitution is notoriously difficult to amend, requiring a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. This reflects the framers’ desire for stability. The Indian Constitution, while not as rigid, also requires a special majority in Parliament (two-thirds of members present and voting) and, in some cases, ratification by at least half of the state legislatures. However, the Indian Constitution has been amended more frequently than the US Constitution, reflecting its adaptability to changing social and political realities.
| Feature | USA | India |
|---|---|---|
| Form of Government | Presidential | Parliamentary |
| Federalism | Dual Federalism | Cooperative/Quasi-Federalism |
| Head of State | President | President |
| Head of Government | President | Prime Minister |
| Constitutional Amendability | Difficult | Relatively Easier |
Conclusion
In conclusion, while both India and the USA are committed to democratic principles, their political systems are shaped by distinct historical contexts and constitutional designs. The US emphasizes a strict separation of powers and a dual federal structure, prioritizing individual liberties and limited government. India, on the other hand, adopts a parliamentary system with a more flexible federal structure, balancing individual rights with social justice concerns. Understanding these fundamental differences is crucial for appreciating the unique strengths and challenges faced by each nation in their pursuit of democratic governance. The continued evolution of both systems, adapting to contemporary challenges, will be vital for their future success.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.