Compare the mechanisms of executive accountability in the U.S. presidential system and India's parliamentary system, with reference to recent electoral developments.

Executive accountability is a government's duty to answer for how it uses power. Article 75(3) makes India's Council of Ministers collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha [1], so its accountability is continuous. The U.S. President serves a fixed term [2] and faces checks that are periodic and spread across separate institutions. One system favours responsiveness and the other favours stability.

U.S. presidential system: periodic and separated accountability

• No confidence vote: the President can be removed only by impeachment for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" [2]. Unpopularity alone is not enough.
• Midterms as a referendum: the whole House is elected every two years [2]. In 2018, the President's party lost its House majority [3], which produced a divided government. The 3 November 2026 midterms are again widely read as a verdict on the President.
• Judicial check: in Learning Resources v. Trump (February 2026), the Supreme Court struck down sweeping executive tariffs [4]. Courts and Congress, not only voters, limit the executive.

India's parliamentary system: continuous and fused accountability

• Collective responsibility: a government survives only while it keeps the Lok Sabha's confidence [1]. A no-confidence motion needs the support of just 50 members [5].
• Floor scrutiny: the 2023 no-confidence motion on Manipur was moved even though its defeat was certain. It forced a full debate and a reply from the government [5].
• Coalition check: in 2024, no single party won a Lok Sabha majority [6], so the government now depends on its allies. Accountability now also runs to coalition partners.

Comparative assessment

• Timing: India's checks work every day, while U.S. checks are mostly tied to the election calendar.
• Removal: India removes a government through a simple majority vote. The U.S. route is quasi-judicial and rarely ends in removal.
• Weaknesses: in India, a large majority and party discipline can turn confidence votes into formalities [5]. In the U.S., a divided government can cause gridlock, and between elections the executive's discretion is wide.

Both systems check the executive, but in different ways: India relies on the legislature's confidence, and the U.S. relies on separated powers and fixed elections. India could deepen accountability through stronger committee scrutiny and meaningful floor debate. The U.S. needs bipartisan oversight that keeps working through electoral swings. In both systems, the constitutional ideal is a government that answers to the people.