There is a strong and compelling case for abandoning the current Westminster model for electing the executive power. Here's why:

In the current system, the role of the legislative office, which is about policy making and keeping the executive under check, is not perceived as such. Legislators are seen, both by the people and themselves, as the disguised executive.

At the constituency level, the local dominant castes or groups exercise near-total control. When these groups elect the disguised executive in the form of a legislator, they end up controlling the executive branch of government through that legislator.

The support of the legislators is critical for survival of the government. Invariably, there is a price extracted for such support, which can be in many forms. The executive is therefore always at the mercy of the legislators. Governance and policy-making is compromised. Transfers and postings of public servants, finalizing contracts and tenders, extending government patronage and interference in crime investigation passes off for administration. Meanwhile, bureaucracy formulates policy which is not its job.

The local legislator is concerned more with pandering to the whims of dominant castes or groups rather than standing for solid ideology or articulated policies. As the political executive is drawn from those elected in this process, candidates without common purpose, vision, or understanding of public affairs become ministers. Often they are at loggerheads fighting for higher positions of power or to further their own group or caste interests.