“It has been said that one of the greatest political problems of the time is to reconcile representative institutions with good government.” With this problem in mind, the cabinet form of government, which is nearly synonymous with the parliamentary form of government, has been established to lessen the gap between representative institutions and good government or, if possible, make them one in the same through its unification of powers. Past forms of representative government have become extinct or severely troubled because of numerous weaknesses. The first problem of representative government that the cabinet system seeks to reconcile is the lack of cooperation between executive powers and legislative powers. This can happen when different parties control each branch of the government. This paralysis of government is seen as a danger to the cabinet system. Lack of cooperation can also occur because people of a country look to the executive as the leader, but he can often not have any power as a result of lack of cooperation from the legislative powers. Overall, there is a lingering inclination in representative government for the powers to become dissonant, thus rendering government unable to take any action. The cabinet system sees this gridlock as an entirely avoidable evil. In representative government, parties are often found. Perhaps the most prevalent danger in a party system is a party split, which paralyzes government just as much as a divergence of executive, legislative, and judicial powers in government. Another danger seen by the cabinet system is making the power of governance too removed from the people. The cabinet system sees taking the powers such as referendum from the citizenry as one of... ... middle of paper ... ...New York: Europa Publications, 2002), s.v. “Parliamentary Government.” Alice Sturgeis, The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, 3rd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill Inc., 1993), 4-5. Sir Ivor Jennings, Cabinet Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951), 17-19. Ibid. Dormin J. Ettrude, The Reference Shelf: Cabinet Form of Government (New York: The H.W. Wilson Company, 1923), 21. Sir Ivor Jennings, Cabinet Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951), 1. Julia E. Johnsen, Cabinet Form of Government (New York: The H.W. Wilson Company, 1926), 55. Sir Ivor Jennings, Cabinet Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951), 214-5. Ibid., 455-6. Ibid., 29-31 Ibid., 420. Vernon Bogdanor, ed., The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Institutions (New York: Basil Blackwell Inc., 1987), s.v. “Cabinet / Cabinet Government.”
In a democratic government, functions of representation can sometimes become skewed or misunderstood. I will examine the different institutions of government including the legislature, the executive, the bureaucracy, and the courts pointing to their differences in trustee vs. delegate functions of representation.
Debating which constitutional form of government best serves democratic nations is discussed by political scientist Juan Linz in his essay “The Perils of Presidentialism”. Linz compares parliamentary systems with presidential systems as they govern democracies. As the title of Linz’s essay implies, he sees Presidentialism as potentially dangerous. Linz points out the flaws as presidentialism as he sees them and sites rigidity of fixed terms, the zero-sum game and political legitimacy coupled with lack of incentive to form alliances as issues to support his theory that the parliamentary system is superior to presidentialism.
Following the failure of the Articles of Confederation, a debate arose discussing how a centralized government ought to be organized. The prevailing opinion ultimately belonged to the Federalists, whose philosophy was famously outlined in The Federalist Papers. Recognizing that in a free nation, man would naturally divide himself into factions, they chose not to remedy this problem by stopping it at its source; instead, they would limit its effects by placing strict structural safeguards within the government's framework. The Federalists defined a facti...
How the legislature is organized is very important to the actual processes of making laws. Seniority is not important at the state level, but the division of power between majority and minority parties is. The speaker of the House is the presiding officer, and is chosen by vote of the whole House. In reality, it is the m...
Contrary to popular belief, a minority government does not necessarily hinder a governing party. When practiced correctly, a minority government can be an improvement on single-party majority. Instead of one party controlling government, minority governments allow for multi-party governance, which promotes compromise between political parties. On the whole, minority government decreases stability and requires continuous cooperation with opposition parties. Although faced with many challenges, there are several beneficial aspects to a minority government. This paper will argue that a minority government does not hinder a governing party, and in fact can be beneficial in numerous ways. Most importantly a minority government allows the Prime Minister to maintain a range of important resources which allow for an effective government, minority governments deliver a more open and inclusive decision making process, and a minority government guarantees the confidence of the House for a certain amount of time.
Discussions of which constitutional form of government best serves the growing number of democratic nation’s are in constant debate all over the world. In the essay “The Perils of Presidentialism”, political scientist, Juan Linz compares the parliamentary system with presidential democracies. As the title of Linz’s essay implies, he sees Presidentialism as potentially dangerous and sites fixed terms, the zero-sum game and legitimacy issues to support his theory. According to Linz, the parliamentary system is the superior form of democratic government because Prime Minister cannot appeal to the people without going through the Parliament creating a more cohesive form of government. By contrast, a
PGCPS. (n.d.). Government Systems: Unitary, Confederate, and Federal Systems. Retrieved March 17, 2011, from www. pgcps.org: www.pgcps.org/~croom2/Reading_Government%20Systems.doc
Hall, Daniel E. Administrative Law: Bureaucracy in a Democracy. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2012. Print.
Linze writes that “Presidentialism is ineluctably problematic because it operates according to the rule of "winner-take-all-arrangement” that tends to make democratic politics a zero-sum game” This causes some people to feel disenfranchised and that the President is not “their President” if the winner is not who they cast their vote for. Linze adds that parliamentary elections are more prone to give representations to a number of parties. Presidential election process leaves little room for consensus building and coalition
Volkomer, Walter E. American Government, 10th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001 (spiral bound). ISBN 0131834991.
The political incentives that spawned parties are transparent. In any system where collective choices are made by voting, organization pays. When action requires winning majorities on a continuing basis in multiple settings, organization is absolutely essential. The Constitution’s provisions for enacting laws and electing leaders therefore put a huge premium on building majority alliances across institutions and electoral units. Parties grew out of the efforts of political entrepreneurs to build such alliances and to coordinate the collective activity necessary to gain control of and use machinery of government. One of the incentives for building political parties is to build stable legislative and electoral alliances. To control policy consistently, then,
In the United States, president is in charge of the executive branch and he initiates the legistlation, but he is dependent on the the legislature to pass it into law. On the other hand, he can veto anything the legislature has passed into law. If we compare this system with a parliamentary s...
For years, countries have had different legislatures bicameral and unicameral. The features of each legislatures are distinct from one another. It even accounts to various vices and virtues. Both legislatures exist in various countries in the world. The reason to which varies in each place. Legislatures are essential for a society to perform politically well. However, the political structure of every nations varies thus, there exist no simple generalization. The structural arrangements of different legislatures are distinct in relation to their number of chambers available. (Danziger, J. N. (1996))
The concept of parliamentary political system was rooted in 1707 of Great Britain; the word derives from ‘parley’, a discussion. It was used to describe meetings between Henry III and noblemen in the Great Council (Szilagyi, 2009). It was originated in British political system and is often known as the Westminster model as it was used in the Palace of Westminster. It became influential throughout many European nations later in the 18th century (Smith, 2010). Countries with parliamentary systems are either constitutional monarchies such as the United Kingdom, Denmark, Australia, and Canada or parliamentary republics such as Greece, India, Ireland and Italy (McTeer, 1995). The parliamentary type of government is known for its three distinctive features; first, executive is divided into the head of state and the head of government, they are independently elected forming a dual executive; second, the fusion of ...
This fusion of power allows the people’s representatives in the legislature to directly engage the executive in debates discussion in issues that will bring positive development in the state. This is not possible in the presidential system since the legislative and the executives arms are constitutionally separated and thereby restricted to engage the legislature in a discussion in which reasons are advanced against some proposition or proposal. The outcome is that party leaders in parliamentary system are more reliable than those in presidential systems. Presidential systems have turned the aim of electoral campaign into personalities rather than platform and programs because the focus is on the candidate and not on the party in general. But parliamentary systems on the other hand focus much more relating structured they do not do anything outside the scope of the party. We can compare the quality of leadership or administration in British, Canadian prime minister to the United State president. In all the country presidential system of government are chosen because people think been a good leader is by popularity and the ability to win election not minding if the candidate is fit for the task of presidency. But in parliamentary system, the person that has high quality of leadership competent enough and trustworthy is