Critical Analysis of Parliamentary Government:

In parliamentary form of government, the executive is squarely answerable towards the legislature and both of these have mutual cooperation. This government is made of qualified and experienced persons. This, besides putting restriction on autocracy, gives importance to the opposition parties. 

This government is flexible. Despite this all, parliamentary government can be criticized on the basis of the following points : 

1. Opposite to the principle of separation of powers:

In parliamentary form of government the executive and the legislature have mutual relations of cohesion. The executive can easily become free-willing. Under this situation, there can be threat to the independence of citizens. By this, it is very clear that governance is against—‘the principle of separation of powers.’ 

2. Origin of autocracy: 

In this form of government, because of close relations between the executive and the legislature, there is a possibility of double danger. Diacy hints at the autocracy of the legislature and Laski says that if the executive is not in control, then the threat of autocracy may always prevail. 

3. Outrage in political group-ism: 

In parliamentary government, political parties give lest importance to the national interests and more to their party interests, due to which national interests suffer. Both the parties – Ruling and Opposition have main interest to acquire power of governance, and to retain this power, there always exists conflict and differences. 

4. Neglect of administrative works: 

Ministers have to maintain constant contact with voters and hence, a big chunk of their time goes to satisfy the voters and the rest of time in framing laws. As a result, ministers are unable to pay sufficient attention towards governance-related functions.

5. Weak government: 

In this, the system of governance is weak. The duration of governance depends on the will of the legislature. Because of the uncertain duration, the cabinet cannot implement influential and long-term plans.

6. Unstable government:

In parliamentary system, the party having majority forms the government, and sometimes, when one party does not have clear majority, then some parties collectively form a coalition government, due to this there is a lack of stability in this cabinet.

7. Not suitable for emergency situations: 

This form of government is not suitable for emergency situations, because in this government, there exists dispute in respect of decisions and not policy assessment. Much time is wasted in this system of governance. Hence, this system is not proper and suitable in emergency period or in war-like circumstances.

8. Governance of incapable persons: 

In parliamentary form of government, the selection of ministers is not done on basis of their skill and administrative experience, instead, they are put on work on the basis of their popularity. In this condition, sometimes power vests with wrong persons.

9. Fear of a dictatorship of majority party:

In parliamentary form of government, the party having majority forms the government. If any party is having very strong majority, then the nature of tyranny gets momentum. Taking support of the majority, this party becomes autocratic. Sometimes, this party makes amendments in the constitution in its own favour. In this way, the tyranny of majority increases in this form of government.

10. Nature of dictatorship of cabinet:

In parliamentary form of government, in principle, the cabinet is absolutely responsible towards the legislature, but in practice, gradually the legislature begins to put its stamp of acknowledgment as a means of mere formality on the decision taken by the cabinet. In this way, the control of parliament on the cabinet remains there in principle only, and in fact, the cabinet rules the system.