Inter-State Council :The Constitution of India Act, 1950 article 263 empowers the President to establish an Inter-State Council (ISC) and define its membership and powers with a view to : “(a) inquiring into and advising upon disputes which may have arisen between States; (b) investigating and discussing subjects in which some or all of the States, or the Union and one or more of the States have a common interest; or (c)making recommendations upon any such subject and, in particular, recommendations for the bettercoordination of policy and action with respect to that subject” (Bakshi, 2006, pp.229-30). The Council having only mandates (b) and (c) above, with Prime Minister, six Union Ministers , Chief Ministers of the States and Territories …show more content…
India is the largest democratic country as also the largest federal and the largest pluralist country of the world. While democracy provides freedom to everybody, federation ensures that governance is distributed spatially and a strong central government enables that the 'unity amidst diversity ' is maintained and the country mobilizes all its resources to maintain its harmony and integrity and marches ahead to progress. A strong Centre in India is therefore necessary for strong States and vice versa. This is the essence of cooperative federalism. So long as the central and governments were ruled by the same political party, the cooperative framework worked very well. Since the seventies when different political parties are in power in the centre and the states and more recently when coalition governments of national and regional parties are in power in the Centre, there are signs of stresses and tensions in intergovernmental relations between the Centre and the States. (Cooperative …show more content…
The genesis of the article can be traced directly to Section 135 of the Govt. of India Act, 1935 provided for establishment of Inter-Provincial Council with duties identical with those of the Inter-State Council. At the time of framing of section 135 of the Government of India Act, 1935, it was felt that "if departments or institutions of coordination and research are to be maintained at the Centre in such matters as Agriculture, Forestry, Irrigation, Education and Public Health and if such institutions are to be able to rely on appropriations of public funds sufficient to enable them to carry on their work, the joint interest of Provincial Governments in them must be expressed in some regular and recognized machinery of Inter-Governmental consultations." It was also intended that the said Council should be set up as soon as the Provincial autonomy provisions of Government of India Act, 1935 came into operation. In the Constituent Assembly debate held on 13 June 1949, the article on Inter-State Council was adopted without any debate. (Cooperative
This concept is commonly accepted to refer to an intense degree of intragovernmental consultation, to the basic equality of the relationship, and to the decentralizing nature of the results in this period (Dyck, 1979). Perhaps the
Federalism makes both central and state governments more equal in power. Source 2 explains how central and state governments are different, though also what common powers they have. This showing how the national government isn't too strong but also the state government is not too strong as well. Meaning both governments have powers and share powers but not too much, this protecting against tyranny. Source 1 states “In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments [state and federal],” Therefore state and national governments are suppose to be different and do different governments so they can check one another and share
The leaders of such a large nation would be unable to stay in touch with the people that they were representing and inevitably the nation would fall to tyranny. The motivation for a central government was essential
The central government has enough power to help some of the country’s major needs and the state government has enough power to help the state’s needs because the state’s needs may be more specific. From this, you may conclude that dividing powers between the central and state governments prevents
This compound government provides ¨double security¨ because all of the portions that go through the state government and central government are equally divided. So the central and state government actually only have so much power, since it is all divided equally. The type of power allotted to the states can only affect the states. That way, the states can't overthrow the central government. Federalism only allows the central government to have so much power, and it can not affect the state government, and vice versa with the states.
Due to this dual federalism promote states to compete with each other which cause tension between
This is superior to having a strong central government like the union because the needs of individual states are more easily managed. For example; all states have different ideals, populations
What led to the rise of the political parties in America from 1789-1799? The period of time in which the revolutionary war, US bank arguments, and the US debt happened. Also with the rise of the political parties, this all, is sending the US into a national crisis.
This United States Constitution was really the second constitution the United States ever had. The first one being The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. It was created by the Second Continental Congress beginning in 1776, all 13 states had ratified it near the beginning of 1781. America fresh off independence from Britain wanted to greatly limit the powers of government and make sure it never became anything similar to Britain’s rule. Because of this the Articles of Confederation gave the government very limited power.
Central Government has the power to regulate trade, declare war and print money. States have the power to establish schools, regulate in-state businesses and to hold elections. These two sectors also share some
Document A declares that the central government is allowed to regulate trade, conduct
Although the six states joined together to form the Commonwealth of Australia, they still each retain the power to make their own laws over matters not controlled by the Commonwealth under Section 51 of the Constitution. State governments also have their own constitutions, as well as a structure of legislature, executive and judiciary. But, as law and its administration become more complicated, members of the federal, state and local executives are required to work together in order to solve problems. In 1992 the federal government established the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), which includes the Prime Minister, state premiers, chief ministers and the president of the Australian Local Government Association, who meet twice a year to discuss intergovernmental matters. In 2008 the federal government set up the Australian Council for Local Government, so it could work directly with local government as well.
Interactions amid the provinces and the federal government, from constitutional issues to the most irresistible topics bang up-to-date in the country, are indemnified beneath the umbrella of “Federalism”. Authorities are shared so that on some matters, the state governments are decision-holders, whereas on the other matters, national government grasps the autonomy. In last twenty-five years, the upsurge of federal fiats on both governments, local and state, has shifted the power amongst state and national governments. Now, the national government is beginning to have more governance over the state’s engagements.
Federalism Federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between federal government, state government and provinces government. While federalism has many benefits, among them is checks and balances between the federal and state government, thus reducing the chances of one party getting too powerful and abusing their power. Preventing one party from being too powerful and abusing their powers is a good thing. However, it comes with a price that federal and provinces (state and local) governments do not always see eye to eye and agree with each other, which turns into conflict.
Parliamentarism, or a parliamentary government, is defined “as a system of government in which the executive, the government, is chosen by and is responsible to…the legislature.” (Gerring, Thacker and Moreno, 2005, p. 15) With this form of governmental control, many advantages and disadvantages arise, especially when this system is compared to the likes of ‘Presidential systems’ or even that of ‘Semi-presidential systems’. However, my aim within this essay is to, both, highlight to advantages of parliamentarism, and to also give my opinion as to why this system is better when compared and contrasted with the aforementioned systems. According to Hague and Harrop (2007, p. 336), there are three different branches relating to the parliamentary system. Firstly, the legislature and the executive are “originally linked”.