Should the prime minister be a member of Lok Sabha?

It's quiet obvious that party in majority will always put a up for PM a Mr.clean, like Dr.Manmohanji, but here we have the problems of people ignorance of Mr.Clean and may be defeated in the election, and if that do happen, will the same defeated PM be put up as PM and the party declared to the world Come What May, he is still our PM and go for third Election?

In my view the candidate of PM should be elected member from the upper house before taking the responsibility of whole nation.

Dear Rekha, please include CM of the State also.

Winning an election is not a gentleman's job. We all know what all is required to contest and win an election. Some people would not indulge in all that. Yet they are precious to a political party and to the Government. There is nothing wrong about it . Even an elected MP if he is PM , represents only people of one constituency and not whole of the country.    The framers of constitution has provided for nomination of few distinguished people in the Upper House. It must be in their minds that such nominated people abilities should be utilised for the country.  Is it necessary that a winner of an election or a good debater would make a good PM. Are these only two qualities to be seen in a person ?  If a person like Mr. Lalu Prasad or Ms. Mayawati would have been a PM candidate, Sh. LK Advani would have shied away from  a public debate with them. 

Yes, Mr.Thukral, I completely agree with the philosophy of the framers of the Constitution in that line as expressed by you. But what is the use of one good man in the parliament when the whole mob are not like that one man? Rather. he or she will be a puppet in their hands and he or she will be made a scape-goat.

It will be like sentencing young innocent students to be in jail in tha company of hardened criminals. singing the song " The more we get together the happier are We"

It will be like sentencing young innocent students to be in jail in tha company of hardened criminals, singing the song " The more we get together the happier are We"

 My humble suggestion is that PM need not be a member of any House. If six months, why not 5 years?

 A man can remain MP for six months without getting elected to either House. Obviously, he become MP also. Many MPs do become ministers like this until elected. Such a PM can do anything. Declare war with nuclear bombs, cede territory,  increase taxes, declare emergency and what not. Who will prevent him? Other members of his inner Cabinet? We have seen the functioning of such a Cabinet during Emergency.

Dear All,

    Thanks to one and all for your valuable views expressed regarding this topic.

   As per my opinion, If the PM is from the Lok Sabha, there is a sense that the most powerful government official in the country has been directly elected by the people on behalf of whom he or she makes the decisions.

If the PM is from the Rajya Sabha, as this election is indirect, the voters do not get to elect the person who would be ruling them.It does not suffice to say that Rajya Sabha members are elected by members of the lower house and by state assemblies. A person who is the choice of the elected representatives might not necessarily be liked by the common people.

An RS candidate gets elected through cliques and party support. Not by reaching out to public and understanding the public’s mind. He can afford a “devil may care” attitude. To this extent, an LS member has better exposure to public and public life besides merely holding conferences in choice locations. Perhaps, LS members are in a better position to learn on the job, especially while on the campaign trail and soon after victory.

A PM, even within his party cannot expect unquestioned support. Even Nehru and Indira Gandhi had their detractors within the Party. Therefore, he certainly requires the most important quality of carrying the supporters with him. It seems that I am after all tending to agree that a PM from LS is better than a PM from RS!