How would you explain to Neha that this is not always the case?
Neha's statement is an oversimplification. In many countries, both a President and a Prime Minister exist together in the same system, which contradicts her formula.
In such systems, the President is the nominal head, while the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers hold the real executive power. The President has discretionary powers only in specific circumstances and generally acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers. The President has the right to be informed of all important matters, and the Prime Minister is obliged to furnish information that the President may call for.
Thus, the presence of a President does not automatically mean a presidential executive. The key distinction lies in who holds actual executive power and the relationship between the executive and the legislature.
Explanation
The textbook context clearly shows that in India's parliamentary system, both a President and Prime Minister coexist. Neha's assumption that 'a country having a president has a presidential executive' is incorrect because India has a President but follows the parliamentary executive model. The context discusses the discretionary powers of the President, the relationship between President and Prime Minister, and how the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers function - all indicators of a parliamentary system where the President is a ceremonial head, not the chief executive.
Solution Steps
Step 1: Identify that Neha's statement oversimplifies the distinction between presidential and parliamentary executives.
Step 2: Use the context to show that both President and Prime Minister can coexist (as in India's parliamentary system).
Step 3: Explain that the President's role is largely ceremonial with limited discretionary powers, while real executive power lies with the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers.