Another merit claimed for the Parliamentary system is its flexibility and elasticity. Bagehot highly eulogized this aspect and pointed out that people can, under this system of government, “choose a ruler for the occasion” who may be especially qualified to successfully pilot the ship of the State through a national crisis. Churchill replaced Chamberlain as Prime Minister, because national emergency demanded it and this change was brought about without any political upheaval in the country. But such a smooth change is not possible under a Presidential type of government. The office of the President goes by calendar. Come what may, Presidential elections must be held after every four years. “The American Government,” says Bagehot, “calls itself a government of the supreme people; but at a quick crisis, the time when the sovereign power is most needed, you cannot find the supreme people… all the arrangements are for stated times. There is no elastic element; everything is rigid, specified and stated. Come what may, you quicken nothing and can retard nothing. You have bespoken your government in advance and whether it suits you or not, whether it works well or works ill, whether it is what you want or not, by law you must keep it. This is one way of expressing the flexibility of the Parliamentary system. Another is the ease with which it can meet the crisis in the social and political life of the people. The executive can explain to and impress upon the legislature its assessment of the situation and the
Methods proposed to meet the emerging situation. Even well established customs may by waived temporarily, as was done in Britain in 1931, when the Ministers “agreed to differ” as against the constitutional convention of collective responsibility, to meet the abnormal situations.