Roadmap for Answer Writing 1. Introduction Contextual Background: Introduce the significance of the presidential election processes in India and France, highlighting the differences due to their political systems. Thesis Statement: State that the election procedures differ significantly, reflecting the unique constitutional frameworks of ...
Model Answer Introduction Parliamentary sovereignty denotes the supreme authority of parliament to enact, amend, and repeal laws, overshadowing other governmental bodies. The British and Indian approaches to this concept, while rooted in the same colonial legacy, have diverged significantly due to tRead more
Model Answer
Introduction
Parliamentary sovereignty denotes the supreme authority of parliament to enact, amend, and repeal laws, overshadowing other governmental bodies. The British and Indian approaches to this concept, while rooted in the same colonial legacy, have diverged significantly due to their distinct constitutional frameworks and interpretations.
Differences between the British and Indian Approaches
1. Constitutional Foundation
- British Approach: The UK operates under an uncodified constitution, allowing for greater flexibility in parliamentary sovereignty based on conventions and judicial precedents.
- Indian Approach: India has a codified constitution that delineates parliamentary powers, offering a structured and explicit framework for sovereignty.
2. Judicial Review
- British Approach: UK parliamentary decisions are theoretically beyond judicial review, affirming the supremacy of Parliament.
- Indian Approach: In India, the judiciary can review and nullify laws passed by Parliament if deemed unconstitutional, emphasizing constitutional supremacy over parliamentary sovereignty.
3. Federal Structure
- British Approach: The UK has a unitary system where parliamentary sovereignty is centralized and indivisible.
- Indian Approach: India’s federal structure divides powers between central and state legislatures, creating a more complex sovereignty dynamic.
4. Amendment of Constitution
- British Approach: The UK Parliament can amend laws, including constitutional principles, without a special procedure due to its unwritten constitution.
- Indian Approach: In India, constitutional amendments require a special majority and, in some cases, ratification by state legislatures, limiting parliamentary sovereignty.
5. Individual Rights
- British Approach: The UK lacks a formal system for protecting individual rights, relying on common law and parliamentary statutes.
- Indian Approach: India has a comprehensive list of fundamental rights in its constitution, which cannot be overridden by parliamentary laws.
Similarities between the British and Indian Approaches
1. Supreme Legislative Body
Both parliaments are supreme in legislative matters, exemplified by landmark bills such as the UK’s Brexit bill and India’s GST Bill.
2. Accountability of the Executive
In both systems, the executive is accountable to Parliament, demonstrated through mechanisms like Prime Minister’s Questions in the UK and question sessions in India.
3. Legislative Processes
Both nations have rigorous law-making processes, with significant scrutiny and debate before enacting laws, such as India’s Anti-defection Law and the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act.
4. Financial Control
Both parliaments oversee national budgets and economic policies, with India’s Union Budget and the UK’s budget presented in their respective houses.
5. Committee System
Committees in both countries play a crucial role in analyzing government expenditures and ensuring accountability, such as the Public Accounts Committee.
Conclusion
In summary, while the British and Indian parliaments share foundational democratic principles and legislative processes, they diverge significantly in their approaches to parliamentary sovereignty. These differences stem from their respective constitutional frameworks, influencing the balance of power between parliament and the judiciary.
See less
Model Answer Introduction The election processes for the Presidents of India and France reflect distinct political and constitutional frameworks. India operates a parliamentary system where the President serves primarily as a ceremonial head of state, while France employs a semi-presidential system,Read more
Model Answer
Introduction
The election processes for the Presidents of India and France reflect distinct political and constitutional frameworks. India operates a parliamentary system where the President serves primarily as a ceremonial head of state, while France employs a semi-presidential system, granting the President significant executive authority.
Election Procedure for the President of India
1. Indirect Election
The President of India is elected by an Electoral College composed of the elected members of both houses of Parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha) and the elected members of the Legislative Assemblies of the States and Union Territories with Legislatures.
Source: Article 52 of the Indian Constitution.
2. Voting System
The election employs a single transferable vote system with a secret ballot, ensuring proportional representation. Each elector’s vote carries a specific value based on the population they represent, promoting equity in the election process.
Source: Election Commission of India.
3.Election Process
Candidates must secure a minimum number of proposers and seconders to contest. The candidate with the highest number of votes is elected as President.
Critique: This indirect election may dilute direct representation, as citizens do not vote directly for the President. However, it maintains the President’s role as a neutral figure, above partisan politics.
Election Procedure for the President of France
1. Direct Election
In contrast, the President of France is elected through a direct popular vote, allowing citizens to actively participate in the election process.
2. Voting System
The French Presidential election uses a two-round system. If no candidate secures an absolute majority in the first round, the top two candidates advance to a runoff. The candidate with the majority in the second round is elected.
Critique: This system empowers citizens and reflects the will of the majority, though it may politicize the office, potentially undermining the President’s role as a unifying figure.
3. Election Process
Candidates require a minimum number of endorsements from elected officials to run, ensuring a level of political support before entering the race.
Conclusion
The election of the President in India through an indirect process emphasizes neutrality and proportionality, while France’s direct election system enhances citizen engagement and democratic accountability. Each method serves the unique political landscape and expectations of its respective nation, showcasing the diversity of democratic practices globally.
See less