That would have worked for sure.
Why cannot Mr Advani be taken seriously? For three reasons, mainly. For one thing, his party does not have even a simple majority, let alone a proper mandate to talk of such grand schemes. Far better that it concentrates on a non-Jayalalitha, non-Sukh Ram type of government than indulging in empty talk of sweeping constitutional reform entailed in turning Indias government into a Presidential one. Mr Advani should know better than anyone else that for a home minister there can be nothing worse than a reputation for hot air. It is, verily, the kiss of political oblivion.
Second, the sole aim of Indian politicians who talk of a Presidential form of government is survival in office. This is because a Presidential form of government delinks the executive from the legislature as far as longevity is concerned. But, as two-and-a-half centuries of US and French experience have shown, it does not necessarily improve governance. This is because laws proposed by the executive still have to be passed by the legislature where, without a majority, the former can achieve nothing. This is called a gridlock and, given the state of Indian politics, it could develop here as well. What use would the change be then?
Third, for success, a Presidential form of government has to alter the structure of the top bureaucracy in such a manner that at least the first two layers in India secretary/additional secretary and joint secretary have to be manned by political appointees. An important reason why the US has had more success than the French is the fact that every new President makes his own political appointments to such administrative top jobs, not necessarily from the ranks of the bureaucracy. This is not the case in France where the permanent civil service is the most powerful arm of government which means that, in choosing his own team, the President is hamstrung from the very start. This would be the case in India a well where the bureaucratic body is designed with a different engine in mind.