after the jharkand mess do you support executive form of govt in the states?

  • Thread starter Thread starter warthog
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 13
  • Views Views 3,791
W

warthog

ok after reading this story i thought that the so called parliamentary form of govt in the states is waste to time and money(elections).7 chief ministers have been there in 10 years.it should be 2 but 7!.also in 2 years presidents rule has been declared 2 times.
President's Rule in Jharkhand for second time in two yrs - Yahoo! India News


is it safe to say that we need usa type of federalism like in india where states create the centre,no presidents rule and have a chief executive ,legislature and judiciary.For those who think the governor will act like a dictator consider that after the US civil war the southern states amended their constitution to have a weak governor like texas and all bills have to passed by both house of state legislature.all mps have freedom to vote without any defection.there are no absolute party whips like in parliamentary system and mps are voted every 2 years.
Governor (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
" Compared to the governors of other US states, the Governorship of Texas is often cited as a fairly weak office.[1][2] Indeed, in some respects it is the Lieutenant Governor of Texas, who presides over the state legislature, who is a more powerful political figure able to exercise greater personal prerogatives"


there will be stability and governor elections after every 4 yrs .

---------- Post added at 09:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 PM ----------

ps:admin i forgot to add the poll.plz add yes\no option saying do you support presidential form of govt in the states only"
 
what we need or should have does not matter. politicians decide what we get and since we select them that's exactly we deserve. they would not go for any form of government that ensures stability of the government. because no one wants to sit in the opposition for a long period of time. and this is the reason why we have messy situations like jharkhand.
 
that option is not present.i think that option is only for you.i have asked you many previous times in other threads where i forgot to add a poll .i am not joking or lying.
 
ok after reading this story i thought that the so called parliamentary form of govt in the states is waste to time and money(elections).7 chief ministers have been there in 10 years.it should be 2 but 7!.also in 2 years presidents rule has been declared 2 times.
President's Rule in Jharkhand for second time in two yrs - Yahoo! India News
Why should it be two ?

Monetary concerns are secondary to the will of the people. Have we forgotten how Jharkhand was allowed to seperate from Bihar per its ppl's wishes less than ten years ago ? Things ought to be better now isn't it. Much more funds will come to Jharkhand and they won't have to fight to get their voice heard like in the previous years.

I think its a good thing that the ppl could throw out as many useless CM's in that time span. What if they were not allowed to ? would it be better, not at all..

Also how many states in the union have this problem, only a handful so why make the exception the rule ?


is it safe to say that we need usa type of federalism like in india where states create the centre,no presidents rule and have a chief executive ,legislature and judiciary.
No, because no state was offered the choice whether to join the union or not except for Pakistan. Therefore the centre has powers to intercede when states fail to hold up as in the above case. I don't have to tell where to look if you want a better understanding of this ;)

Explain what would happen to Jharkhand currently if we had a US federal system ?

They would have had fewer CM's as a result and the ppl would have had no choice but to put up with it. Guess whether the outcome & damage would have been less or more compared to the current system ?

For those who think the governor will act like a dictator consider that after the US civil war the southern states amended their constitution to have a weak governor like texas and all bills have to passed by both house of state legislature.all mps have freedom to vote without any defection.there are no absolute party whips like in parliamentary system and mps are voted every 2 years.
Governor (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
" Compared to the governors of other US states, the Governorship of Texas is often cited as a fairly weak office.[1][2] Indeed, in some respects it is the Lieutenant Governor of Texas, who presides over the state legislature, who is a more powerful political figure able to exercise greater personal prerogatives"


there will be stability and governor elections after every 4 yrs .
If the end goal is stability then we've already discussed this in the presidential vs parliament thread.

Dissent of the ppl is more important than stability especially in a country as diverse as ours.
 
you dont get it.people dont throw out govts.we dont have recall system.the polticial parties do horse trading and when they dont get what they want they pull the plug.they have no wishes to follow the people.sometimes i think you only post that is anything against my views.
 
Tell me, what happens when a candidate fails to get the required amount of votes ?

Is this the same as being thrown out.

I agree we cannot recall someone who is in office but then if they are in office let them do their job.

The horsetrading you're talking about happens big time in the US anytime one party wants to pass some sort of controversial legislation, its by no means unique to us our our system. I don't have a problem with that, sometimes you have to trade favours to get what you want. Such is life.

sometimes i think you only post that is anything against my views.
And i realise you don't like it when opposing views are put forward. Course I don't care about that, my comments are directed at what you write and not at you personally. I'm not writing to you personally but to everyone that reads this. If you don't like that come up with better arguments, if they are solid and backed up you have a good chance of getting your way.

Maybe admin should create a rant section where ppl like you can preach/bitch/whine/moan whatever comes to your heads and the rest of us just 'listens'.
 
I really pity on the people of state who after 10 years couldnt get a stable govt.All elected people there had only 1 agenda, to exploit its rich natural resources. I hope after next state elections, they elect a proper party which could last its full term (and also contribute in development of state) :DAbout change is system, as it is discussed many time in past, so same thing could happen, nothing would change in existing system :(
 
I really pity on the people of state who after 10 years couldnt get a stable govt.
All elected people there had only 1 agenda, to exploit its rich natural resources. I hope after next state elections, they elect a proper party which could last its full term (and also contribute in development of state) :D
I take a more benign view about it. See it as a learning process where a new state is trying to find its footings. Not as an indictment on the system.

If the first ten years were rough, what will the next ten bring for Jharkhand ?

About change is system, as it is discussed many time in past, so same thing could happen, nothing would change in existing system :(
Absolutely, if it cannot be shown that there are concrete problems with the existing system where is the guarantee that a new one will be better :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back