British prime ministers are given a great deal of power in comparison to other modern democracies, since the majority party in Parliament commonly passes all laws, party discipline is strong, and there are few checks on power. PMs are elected to a maximum five-year term but are able to call elections any time during that period, which would finish his or her term and end the current session of Parliament. When a significant bill is rejected by the legislature, a vote of no confidence may occur. Consequently, either the entire cabinet resigns and is replaced or new elections are called. This is another way the Prime Minister’s term and session of Parliament may come to a close. If neither a vote of no confidence occurs nor the PM calls a new election, the government simply waits until the term has expired for both the PM and Parliament to replace …show more content…
India’s constitution conveys the basic principles of the parliamentary democracy of Britain, who ruled the nation for centuries. However, Indian government is more like that of the U.S. in certain aspects, such as its federal system, which gives significant power to its state governments. The branches of Indian government consist of the president, the prime minister and cabinet, the legislature, and the judiciary. Due to India’s nature as a republic, the head of state not a monarch but a president, whose role is mostly symbolic. The primary powers of the executive branch are the prime minister and his or her cabinet. Not surprisingly, the Indian prime minister conducts many of the same duties as those of the British prime minister and attains his or her position by being the leader of the majority party in the lower house. As long as the majority party is in favor of the prime minister, there is no term limit imposed on his or her office. The PM chooses members of parliament to constitute a large Council of Ministers, of which a smaller group of 15 to 20 meet weekly as the cabinet to manage government