PART IV
PROVINCIAL FINANCE UNDER THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT OF 1919
CHAPTER X
THE NECESSITY FOR A CHANGE
As two types of governmental systems, the Presidential and Parliamentary are often contrasted [1] to the advantage of the latter. For the Parliamentary type of government it has been claimed [2] that no other arrangement seems able quite so effectively to place the centre of authority under the control of those who are supposed to represent the popular will : that it means government by consent: that it ensures the exercise of the functions of government by a body of persons who are amenable to and whose views are in accord with those of the majority of the Legislature : that it is the only form of government which provides for a powerful Executive so very necessary for a stable government without rendering it so irresponsible as to endanger the essentials of a good government: that it throws upon the holders of high office the onus of vindicating their acts or, failing, suffer dismissal: it renders the Legislature supreme both in legislation and administration so that it forms a government not only to make life possible but also to make life good. No other form of government, it is urged, can so effectively prevent order degenerating into tyranny or progress blocked in the name of peace. So eminently has Parliamentary Government demonstrated its supreme virtue in securing orderly progress that, though originally developed as an accident in the evolution of the British Constitution, it has been most eagerly adopted as the most fundamental institution by many countries whose political convulsions have required them to prepare anew or alter the existing framework of their governmental systems.
If the fact of the Executive being a part of the Legislature be a sufficient indication of the Parliamentary type of government, then the system of government in India since 1853 may be said to be analogous to the Parliamentary system. Indeed it would
1 Cf. James Bryce, The American Commonwealth, 1910, Vol. I, Chap. XX.
2 Cf. Sir Sidney Low, The Goveranance of England, 1914, Ch. III, passim.