In India there are various religions and casts, so parliamentary government is not as effective in India as in England. Now a days due to the current type of government many regional political powers are rising which is very harmful for our nation. I strongly support presidential rule. The president must be elected by the people of India, and a face which is well known to all should be given the power because if the people are aware of the character and the nature of the nominated persons then it would be better to elect the best one.
When you compare two systems: one that provides clarity to the voters about who they are electing to be their leader and what their policies are, against the second where confusion reins supreme, which one would you prefer?
A distinct advantages for India, if it goes for presidential system would be that the states will have elected governors. An elected governor is a powerful figure. He would bring stability in states which generally face political ups and downs and where the chief ministers do not last in office for long. A Governor; if elected for five years will be expected to remain in office for the whole term. He will therefore be able to initiate and implement the development programmes without interruption and state will stand to benefit.
Traditionally, there have been three criticisms of the presidential form of government: the president can assume dictatorial powers; the executive is not responsible to the directly elected legislature; and finally, if the president belongs to one party and the legislature is controlled by another party, it can lead to conflict and paralysis.
Each of these criticisms can be dealt with. As the US experience has shown, there are definite checks and balances in the presidential system. Scarred by his run-ins with the Republican-controlled Congress, Obama is known to have expressed surprise at the limits imposed on the power of the president. Second, does anyone in India really.