The governance structure of a nation plays a pivotal role in shaping its political stability, economic development, and social progress. For underdeveloped countries navigating the path to prosperity, the choice between a parliamentary and a presidential system becomes a critical decision, which could lead to the stability and prosperity of a nation.
Parliamentary systems offer flexibility and adaptability in leadership. The head of government, often the Prime Minister, is drawn from the majority party or coalition in the parliament. This adaptability allows for changes in leadership without organizing a full-scale election. Parliamentary systems often, incorporate proportional representation, ensuring a diverse range of voices in the legislative branch. Coalition governments are common, fostering collaboration and inclusivity. The parliamentary system encourages consensus-building as policies must often gain support from a majority in the parliament. This can be advantageous in fostering political stability through collaboration.
On the other hand, Presidential systems provide stability through fixed terms for the head of state. The President, elected independently of the legislature, serves as both the head of state and head of government, providing a clear and singular leadership structure. Advocates for presidential systems argue that they can offer more efficient decision-making processes due to a clear line of authority. This could potentially reduce bureaucracy and expedite policy implementation. Citizens directly elect the president, providing a more direct form of representation. However, this may not always reflect the diversity of political opinions within the country.
The historical context and political culture of a nation are paramount. Countries with a tradition of successful coalition politics may find parliamentary systems more suitable, while those with a preference for strong, stable leadership might lean towards presidential systems. The goals of economic and social development should guide the choice. Stability might be a priority for some, favouring a presidential system, while others may prioritize inclusivity, diversity and adaptability, aligning with a parliamentary system. The effectiveness of institutions in managing either system is crucial. A robust legal and institutional framework is necessary for the smooth functioning of either a parliamentary or a presidential system.
There is no universal answer to the question of which system is better for underdeveloped countries. The decision must be context-specific, taking into account the nation’s history, culture, and development goals. Both parliamentary and presidential systems have proven successful in different circumstances, emphasizing the need for tailored governance structures that address the unique challenges faced by each underdeveloped nation. Ultimately, a commitment to democratic principles, accountability, and responsive governance should guide the choice, laying the foundation for a path to sustainable development.
Conclusion: India’s adoption of the Parliamentary system of government has completely changed the political scenario in India. The system establishes faith within the citizens of India for the several principles of democracy. The Parliament possesses enormous power as it represents the will and aspirations of the people of India. It delegates both duties and rights to the citizens of India ensuring effective administration within the country.
The writer is a former Attorney at Law J&K High Court, presently a Government Law Officer and pursuing MA in Political Science through IGNOU. Feedback at [email protected]

Mudasir Mushtaq Khan