Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Westminster system, originating in the United Kingdom, is a parliamentary system of government characterized by a fusion of executive and legislative powers, a head of state (ceremonial) and a head of government (real executive power). India adopted this system post-independence, but with significant modifications. While ostensibly mirroring the British model, the Indian Prime Minister (PM) enjoys a degree of power and authority that often surpasses that of his British counterpart. This difference stems from variations in constitutional design, the nature of the party system, and the socio-political context of the two nations. This answer will elucidate these differences, demonstrating why the Indian PM is, in practice, more empowered.
Constitutional Provisions and Formal Powers
Both the Indian and British PMs derive their authority from the legislature. However, key constitutional differences contribute to the Indian PM’s greater power.
- Article 74 & 75 (Indian Constitution): These articles establish the Council of Ministers, with the PM at its head, collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha. This provides a strong constitutional basis for executive authority.
- Collective Responsibility: While collective responsibility exists in the UK, the Indian system places a greater emphasis on the PM’s leadership within the Council of Ministers.
- Presidential System Influence: The Indian Constitution, while parliamentary, exhibits some characteristics of a presidential system, particularly in the PM’s appointment and the lack of a direct vote of no confidence requirement for individual ministers (unlike the UK).
Party System and Political Realities
The nature of the party system significantly impacts the PM’s power.
- Dominant Party System (India): For much of its history, India has experienced a dominant party system (Congress for a long period, and now increasingly BJP). This allows the PM to wield considerable control over the legislature, ensuring smooth passage of legislation.
- Two-Party System (UK): The UK traditionally operates with a two-party system (Conservative and Labour), leading to more frequent hung parliaments and coalition governments. This necessitates greater compromise and limits the PM’s unilateral power.
- Coalition Governments (India): Even during periods of coalition governments in India (1989-2014), the PM often retained significant authority due to the fragmented nature of the coalitions and the need for strong leadership to maintain stability.
Role of Institutions
The strength and independence of institutions also play a crucial role.
- Judicial Review: While both countries have judicial review, the Indian judiciary has been more proactive in intervening in policy matters, sometimes necessitating greater executive leadership and authority to navigate these challenges.
- Bureaucracy: The Indian bureaucracy, historically powerful, often requires strong political direction from the PM’s office. This necessitates a more assertive PM.
- Parliamentary Scrutiny: While the British Parliament is known for its robust scrutiny of the executive, the Indian Parliament, particularly the Lok Sabha, has often been less effective in holding the government accountable, especially when the ruling party enjoys a comfortable majority.
Specific Powers – A Comparative Table
| Power | Indian PM | British PM |
|---|---|---|
| Appointment of Ministers | Largely discretionary, subject to coalition dynamics. | More constrained by party considerations and potential dissent. |
| Dissolution of Parliament | President acts on PM’s advice (Article 85). | Monarch acts on PM’s advice, but convention plays a larger role. |
| Foreign Policy | Dominant role in shaping and implementing foreign policy. | Subject to greater parliamentary and public scrutiny. |
| Emergency Powers | Significant powers during national emergencies (Article 352). | Limited emergency powers, subject to parliamentary oversight. |
Recent Trends and Examples
Recent trends further demonstrate the increasing power of the Indian PM.
- Centralization of Power: The current government has been accused of centralizing power in the PMO (Prime Minister’s Office), bypassing traditional bureaucratic channels.
- Direct Engagement with the Public: The Indian PM frequently engages directly with the public through social media and public rallies, building a personal rapport and circumventing traditional media scrutiny.
- Strong Leadership Image: The projection of a strong leadership image, both domestically and internationally, enhances the PM’s authority.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while India adopted the Westminster model, the Indian Prime Minister has evolved into a significantly more powerful figure than his British counterpart. This is due to a combination of constitutional provisions, the dynamics of the Indian party system, the role of institutions, and recent political trends. The Indian PM’s authority is bolstered by a dominant party system, a relatively weaker parliamentary oversight, and a strong executive focus. This concentration of power, while potentially enabling swift decision-making, also raises concerns about accountability and the potential for executive overreach.
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.