The President of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, Maulana Qari Syed Mohammad Usman Mansoorpuri, offered valuable suggesstion regarding various important national, international and community issues in his presidential address delivered on the occasion of the 30th general session of the organisation.
In his address, he condemned terrorism. “The entire world is facing the menace of terrorism. Terrorism by any individual or any organisation has to be condemned. A country or society can only prosper in peaceful conditions,” he said. “In this connection, Jamiat Ulama-i- Hind has so far conducted nearly 200 meetings and conferences. We have achieved considerable success on this point and shall continue to fight unless peace prevails in the society,” he added.
Condemning the attempts to attribute terrorism with Islam and the holy Prophet of Islam, he said that Islam advocated peace and forbade hatred and voilence in every form. Islam accords extreme respect to human life. Killing an innocent person is considered to be a major sin in Islam, which declares the unlawful killing of a single person as similar to murdering all the human beings, and protecting a single life at par with protecting all the human beings. Those who ascribe terrorism to Islam are the enemies of truth and justice. The JUH president feared that this propaganda would weaken the fight against terrorism. He said that it was imperative to end such an unfortunate situation and should work for the welfare of all Indians, irrespective of their caste, community and religion.
The JUH president asserted that the move to establish the central madarsa board was likely to dilute the identity of madarsas, their aims and objective, and end their spiritual character. He termed the setting up of the madarsa board as “unnecessary as well as unacceptable.” He said that the flaws in the present system could be rectified by setting up a madrasa board controlled by the madrasa functionaries and not by the government. Jamiat always has drawn the attention of the funtionaries of madarsas to make their financial transactions transparent and there would be attempts in every possible way to correct the wrongs.
Speaking on the Sachar Committee report, Qari Usman said that the committee was meant to study the condition of the Muslims but later, ignoring the spirit of the report, all minoritity communities were included in the recommendations. It has created huge confusion and misunderstanding among others.
He furtehr elobrated if those recommendations are inplemented honestly, Muslims will be able to restore their presence into mainstream of the country. He also said that the recommendations of the committee would be put into action on the basis of Muslim backwardness removing the hurdles that come in the way.
The President of Jamiat said that Mishra Commission had recommended 10 per cent reservation for Muslims and inclusion of backward castes of Muslims by amending article 341. He demanded that those reports be discussed on the floor of Parliament and necessaary action be taken accordingly.
Speaking on Librahan Commission, the president of Jamiat said that the report be discussed in the Parliament and necessary steps be taken for implementing it.
While declaring judgment of Delhi High Court about homosexuality as accursed, He took exception to de facto stand of the government about the issue. The president said it was a good sign that the judgment met with determined resistance from all religious communities. All religious figures in the country were unanimous that homosexuality was a sin and social evil. As far as Islam is concerned, it decreed severe punishment for doers of such deviant act.The inevitable consequences of recognition of homosexuality would cause alarming danger to existence of human society. It would damage human respect and trust with each other, said Mansoorpuri. He appealed to all individuals, organisations and...
...different aspects towards the view of politics. Countries around the world all have diverse components, which makes that state in particular unique. The systems of the world are used to govern the state as its best of the ability according to the ideology and attitude of that particular state. Many states around the world are merging towards the democracy state and taking up many of its characteristics. The characteristics are not set for a specific one because each democracy in the world today contains different ones but essential ideas. The executive-legislative relation is one of these aspects and the state differs in which one is practiced. The presidential system is used by the democracy of the United States but on the other hand the parliamentary system is used by the democracy of Great Britain.
Characteristics of the systemsThe presidential system is a political system that holds the president as head of the government and the chief executive chosen in a democratic election. The president holds the office for a fixed term, which in the U.S. is for four years. There is separation of powers due to the fact that there is no overlap between the executive and the legislature and there are independent of one another. Being so, the president has no right in removing any of the legislature form office unless a vote is done under certain conditions. In this system there are limited number of parties and usually a two-party system. In the United...
...Presidential and Parliamentary systems are the two possible forms of Government in a democracy. In England there is the Parliamentary system, and it has worked so well over the years that it has become a model for a number of other countries. In the U.S.A., on the other hand, there is the Presidential form of executive, and it has been working quite successfully in that country. These two forms of government have their own distinctive characteristics, and their own respective merits and demerits.
Soon after the inauguration of the Republic of India on 26th January, 1950, India opted for the Parliamentary from of Government, modeled closely on the English Parliamentary system. She has adopted most of the conventions of the English system, hoping that it will work as well as in India as it has worked in England. But in recent times it has been felt that the Parliamentary form was not working well, and that a change-over to the Presidential system was urgently needed. The issue has become a matter of hot controversy, between the 'pro-changers' and "no-changers" amongst the intelligentsia, the political scientists, the jurists, the judges, the politicians, the journalists, and our highly politicized, though largely illiterate, electorate. Let us first examine the salient features of both these systems, and then form our own conclusion.
In the Parliamentary system the Prime Minister and Chief Minister are totally dependent upon their...
...everything.” Alexander Hamilton was a founding father for the American presidential system. On the contrary of the democratic system is the parliamentary system. The parliamentary system is more democratic than the presidential system. The comparisons of presidential and parliamentary system are limited amounts of similarities. The contrasts of the systems are aggregations of differences and important in to showing which one is more democratic.
The comparison of these two systems will tell the people about why these systems both work in a vast area of politics. Presidential systems and parliamentary systems, in a pure system, are the two democratic systems that are the most used democratic systems around the world. With the two pure systems being used and being successful they have a key to success. The key to that success is the use of people. In both systems they use the people to vote for a collection of issues. In both systems as Shively talked about, in both chapters, the people vote for the government positions. When the citizens take part in the government, the government gets stronger. Both systems have control over what laws and policies are passed according to Shively (Shively 323). This helps with how the process of law making and policy passing go smoother. If the government is overlooking what is going in the process it is more likely to get done. The last comparison is the cabinet in both the...
...Presidential form of Government
NATURE OF THE SYSTEM:
Presidential form of government, is a government in which the chief executive is not responsible to the legislature. Bagehot, " the independence of the legislative and the executive powers is the specific quality of presidential government just as fusion and combination is the principle of cabinet government". If we compare cabinet and presidential systems, we can find that they are both representative in character, but in cabinet system the executive is a part of legislature and responsibility of executive
to legislature is sine quo non . In presidential form of government the executive, i.e., PRESIDENT is constitutionally independent of legislature. They are two distinct organs more or less separated from each other. The executive is not the creature of legislature, nor is it responsible for its public acts or dependent for its seat. The head of the state exercise real power, as it derives from the constitution and as such there is no distinction between a executive and the executive.
Dr.Garner,"What has been called 'Presidential' government as contra-distinguished from cabinet or parliamentary government, is that system in which the executive (including both the Head of the state and his ministers) is constitutionally independent of the legislature in respect to the duration of his or their tenure and irresponsible to it for his...
...DIVISION OF COMMERCE
ASSOCIATE DEGREE IN ARTS
DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT AND POLITICAL STUDIES
SEMESTER ONE: AUG – DEC 2012
Question: ‘When examining Guyana, Cuba and Venezuela what are the features that make the mixture of the Presidential and Prime Ministerial system so attractive to so many democracies?’
“A prime ministerial government system is a system in which executive power is concentrated in the prime minister’s hands through the suppression of collective cabinet government” (Heywood: Pg 429: 2002). A Prime ministerial government has two key features. First the office of prime minister is the central unit between the legislative and the executive branches of government, its holder being drawn from and accountable to the assembly and also serving as chief executive subordination of both the cabinet and departmental ministers. In this, it parallels presidentialism. Prime ministerial government has been criticized for the following reasons:
* It strengthens centralization by weakening the constraints formerly exerted by the cabinet and government departments.
* It narrows policy debate and weakens scrutiny by excluding criticisms and alternative viewpoints.
However, it can be defended on the following grounds:
* It reflects the personal mandate that prime ministers acquire in general elections.
* It gives government policy clearer direction by checking the centrifugal pressures, embodied in departmentalism and the...
...Pros and Cons of Parliamentary and Presidential
System in a New Country
In order to be recognised as a new and independent country, such nation must be able to determine what system of government should be used. If the new country will choose the democratic form of government, there are two systems to be chosen. These include parliamentary and the presidential system. The main goal of this paper is to determine the pros and cons of parliamentary and presidential system in a new country.
Parliamentary and Presidential System
Parliamentary democracy and presidential democracy are alike in many
ways when comparisons are drawn from two similarly strong western liberal democratic systems. They both enjoy the same fundamental principles of liberal democracy, with those living under this system enjoying the same rights and freedoms with comparable economic conditions. The real difference between these two systems lies in the division of power (). Parliamentarism has been defined as having the parliament as the only democratically legitimate institution is parliament, whereby the government’s authority is completely dependent upon parliamentary confidence. (). While argues that there are three conditions necessary to declare a system parliamentary: All major government decisions must be taken by people chosen in elections conducted along party lines. Policy...
...Presidential versus parliamentary systems
ILONA MÁRIA SZILÁGYI
Miklós Zrínyi National Defence University, Budapest, Hungary
This article is a comparison of presidential and parliamentary systems. They are the two
most popular types of democratic governments. They have common and dissimilar features.
In both presidential and parliamentary systems the chief executive can be removed from
office by the legislature but the way of it is different. Dissimilar feature is the election of
the chief executive and the debate styles. I present the two best examples of these
systems: the USA (presidentialism) and the UK (parliamentary system).
Consequently nations can choose which system they sympathise: the more classic
parliamentary system or the less rigid presidential system, or the mixture of them. I do
not want to stand by neither of them in my essay. I just want to show and compare them.
A nation’s type of government refers to how that state’s executive, legislative, and
judicial organs are organized. All nations need some sort of government to avoid
anarchy. Democratic governments are those that permit the nation’s citizens to manage
their government either directly or through elected representatives. This is opposed to
authoritarian governments that limit or prohibit the direct participation of its citizens.
Two of the most popular types of democratic governments are the...
...Presidential vs. Parliamentary
There are two main types of political systems, one being a presidential system and the other being a parliamentary system. Both of them have their own benefits as well as their own disadvantages. No political system can be perfect or can always have stability, but shown in history there are successful countries that use either one. Also there are countries that have failed with one of the two systems.
Firstly there is thepresidential system. There are many characteristics to a presidential system. The first main part of a presidential system is how the executive is elected. The executive is a president who is elected to a fixed term. Also a president is not only head of state, but is head of government. The president is the sole executive of the government. Even though there is a cabinet in a presidential system it does not have the power it does in a parliamentary system. The cabinet is chosen by the president instead of chosen by the parliament. A president has to follow a constitution rather than following history. The president actually has a large part in the government's decisions. A big advantage to political scientists of the presidential system is that there is a separation of powers. The legislative branch being separate from the executive branch lets one another keep checks and balances on each other. This assures...