Despite the foregoing advantages, the parliamentary system has the following flaws:
- A chaotic government
A stable government is not provided by the parliamentary system. A government’s ability to remain in power is not assured. The continuation and survival of the ministers in office depends on the good will of the majority of the legislators. The administration may become unstable due to a no-confidence vote, a political defection, or the negative effects of a multiparty coalition. Examples of such governments include those led by Morarji Desai, Charan Singh, V.P. Singh, Chandra Sekhar, Deva Gowda, and I.K. Gujral.
- No consistency in policies
The creation and execution of long-term initiatives are not facilitated by the legislative system. This is a result of the unpredictability of the government’s term in office. Changes in the government’s policy typically occur after a change in the ruling party. For instance, the 1977 Janata government led by Morarji Desai changed a significant number of the previous Congress government’s policies. The Congress administration did the same after regaining power in 1980.
- Cabinet Dictatorship
When the ruling party has a complete majority in the Parliament, the cabinet takes on an authoritarian role and has almost limitless authority. According to H.J. Laski, the parliamentary system allows the government to exercise tyranny. Former British Prime Minister Ramsay Muir also lamented the “dictatorship of the cabinet.”This phenomenon was observed when Rajiv and Indira Gandhi were in power.
- Opposed to the division of powers
The legislative and the executive are one and the same in a parliamentary system. The cabinet serves as both the executive and legislative leaders. The cabinet, as noted by Bagehot, “joins the buckle that fastens the executive and legislative departments together.” Since there is a fusion of powers, the entire structure of government violates the letter and spirit of the idea of separation of powers.
- Amateurs in the Government
The parliamentary system does not promote administrative effectiveness since the ministers lack subject-matter expertise. The Prime Minister has a limited selection when choosing ministers; his options are limited to only those individuals who are currently sitting members of Parliament and do not include potential outside candidates. Additionally, the ministers spend the majority of their time on party-related activities, cabinet meetings, and parliamentary activity.
Key Features of Demerits of Parliamentary System
- Instability: The likelihood of political instability is one of the main critiques leveled at parliamentary systems. Governments may change frequently since they are subject to dissolution and replacement at any time through parliamentary elections or votes of no confidence. Long-term policy planning and implementation may suffer as a result, which can result in unstable and short-lived governments.
- Ineffective Opposition: Parliamentary systems may give rise to a fragmented and ineffective opposition, despite the fact that a strong opposition can serve as a check on the power of the government. The lack of effective checks and balances may be caused by opposition parties that are more interested in criticizing the government than in presenting workable alternatives.
- Coalition governments: Although they can encourage diversity and compromise, they can also be difficult to manage. Conflicting policy agendas among coalition members may result in policy deadlock or compromises that are inconsistent with the fundamental principles of any party. It may be challenging to put effective and decisive policies into action as a result.
- Minority Governments: In some situations, the legislature is won by a coalition or group of parties rather than a single party. As a result, minority governments may find it difficult to win support for their initiatives, which will likely result in many talks and concessions. Votes of no confidence are extremely dangerous for such governments.
- Party discipline: In parliamentary systems, parliamentarians (MPs) are frequently required to vote along party lines, which might limit their capacity to freely reflect the opinions of their people. This party discipline may result in a lack of diversity in policy discussions and the impression that MPs put party loyalty before the interests of their constituents.
- Potential for Dominance: In some parliamentary systems, one political party may rule the political scene for protracted periods, preventing real political competition. This may lead to corruption, complacency, and a loss of focus on accountability.
- Concentration of Power: The executive branch, particularly the prime minister and cabinet, are said to hold a disproportionate amount of authority in parliamentary systems, according to critics. The ability of other governmental organs, such as the judiciary, to effectively serve as checks on the executive, may be hampered by this concentration of power.
- Lack of Direct Accountability: Despite the emphasis on accountability to the legislature in parliamentary systems, some claim that direct accountability to the people is absent. There may be a perception of a democratic deficit because, in most circumstances, the executive is not directly chosen by the people.
- Inertia and Resistance to Change: Because of their risk-averse political culture or vested interests, parliamentary systems can occasionally be reluctant to confront urgent concerns or adapt to social changes. Established political parties and institutions may oppose reforms and policy changes.
- Risk of Partisanship: Political polarization and partisan behavior are risks in any political system, even parliamentary systems. Cooperation, reaching consensus, and efficient governance may all be hampered by this.
- Complexity of Coalition Building: Coalition formation and maintenance may be difficult and time-consuming processes that frequently include negotiations and concessions between numerous stakeholders. This intricacy can impede prompt crisis responses and slow down government decision-making.
- Less Direct reflection: Parliamentary systems, as opposed to those that place a greater focus on direct elections, like presidential systems, may occasionally offer less direct reflection of citizens’ choices.