Juan Linz – The Perils of Presidentialism
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
It is not uncommon for the President to adapt his/her policy agenda to meet their personal time frame. Additionally, to remove a President from office requires a lengthy process. A successor will likely political legitimacy and may have their own agenda causing further discontinuity. On the other hand, Linz describes the fixed term for parliamentary leaders as stable because they can be removed from office easily and replaced seamlessly.
Linz 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. Linz 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
Chapter nine of Enduring Debate talks about how the American opinion poll plays role in constructing the government and how the media has affected the American politics. The public polling promotes democracy by allowing citizens to give their views concerning issues in government. The opinion polls also keep the government on toes. The main ideas are based on the founding of the American state and the constitution. Constitutionalism is based on the concept of the rule of law and limited authority. American constitutional principles can be traced back over 200 years ago. However, the practical meaning of constitutionalism is a recent and peculiar achievement. In the American history before the constitution was implemented, most governments were established by use of force, heredity, the need to stop anarchy and by the belief in God’s will. During out the history, this style of establishing authority has endorsed power to different leaders with different characteristics. Some were dictators, divine, kings, tyrants while others were bureaucratic. These people had full control of power. They exercised absolute authority. The main reason is that there were no instruments of power such as constitution that could limit and keep in check the powers of these forms of government.
Examining the conceptualizations and theories of Neustadt and Skowronek’s in comparative perspective, this essay makes the principal argument that both of these theories only represent partial explanations of how success and efficiency is achieved in the context of the Presidency. With Neustadt focusing saliently on the President’s micro-level elite interactions and with Skowronek adopting a far more populist and public opinion-based framework, both only serve to explain some atomistic facets of the Presidency. As such, neither is truly collectively exhaustive, or mutually exclusive of the other, in accounting for the facets of the Presidency in either a modern day or historical analytical framework. Rather, they can best be viewed as complementary theories germane to explaining different facets of the Presidency, and the different strengths and weaknesses of specific Administrations throughout history.
As the President of the United States, a president have powers that other members of the government do not. Presidential power can be defined in numerous ways. Political scientists Richard Neustadt and William Howell give different views on what is presidential power. These polarized views of presidential powers can be used to compare and contrast the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
The Evolution of the Power of the Presidency The views of the presidency by the first sixteen presidents varied widely but all of their actions set precedents for their successors to use, expand, or even curtail the power of the office. Some believed in the Whig theory of strict adherence to the constitution, while others believed the president was the steward of the people with a loose interpretation of it. The power of the office expanded through the years, however it only expanded as far as the public and congress allowed. George Washington was the first President of the United States of America and realizing this he acted carefully and deliberately, aware of the need to build an executive structure that could accommodate future presidents.
Different Aspects Weakening the Presidency The presidency is commonly misperceived as a position of absolute power. On the contrary, presidential scholars Richard Neustadt, Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents, and Gary Rose, The American Presidency Under Siege, argue the presidency is better characterized in terms of weaknesses. Their identification of contributing factors to weakened presidency differ in degree, execution, and form. Neustadt and Rose focus on two separate areas affecting the presidency and its effectiveness, each taking into account different aspects of the presidency while ignoring others. Neustadt's view of a model president is one who is active, yet conservative of his power.
When the constitution of the United States was formed, the framers specifically designed the American Government structure to have checks and balances and democracy. To avoid autocracy the President was give power to preside over the executive branch of the government and as commander –in –chief, in which a clause was put into place to give the president the power to appeal any sudden attacks against America, without waiting for a vote from congress. While the president presides over the executive branch there has been ongoing debate over the role of the president in regards to foreign policy. Should foreign policy issues be an executive function by the president or should congress play a much greater role? With the sluggishness of our democracy, foreign policy issues most times need quicker response compared to how domestic policy is decided in the United States. Many believe to maintain openness and democracy both the president and congress need to agree on how the United States handles issue abroad. Although the president has been given much power, his or her power and decisions are sometimes limited based on decisions by congress and challenged and shaped by various bureaucracies throughout the government system. I shall discuss the Presidents role and the role of governmental bureaucracies (Department of Defense, Department of State and the National Security Council) that work together and sometimes not together to shape and implement American foreign Policy.
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.
The American presidency has done a total three sixty from the time of George Washington’s reign to Barack Obama. This is due to how our society has evolved in good and bad ways. Our government has become much more democratic and voters are more involved then they have ever been. Our Country formed a democracy so that not one family or ruler could take over the United States. This decision was formed when the U.S. Constitution was formed. The president of the United States has the title of the chief executive office of the country. “In the United States the president is vested with great authority and is arguably the most powerful elected official in the world” (Britannica). The significance of the American Presidency comes in all shapes and
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
Richard E. Neustadt, the author of Presidential Power, addresses the politics of leadership and how the citizens of the United States rate the performance of the president's term. We measure his leadership by saying that he is either "weak or "strong" and Neustadt argues that we have the right to do so, because his office has become the focal point of politics and policy in our political system. Neustadt brings to light three main points: how we measure the president, his strategy of presidential influence, and how to study them both. Today we deal with the President himself and his influence on government action. The president now includes about 2000 men and women, the president is only one of them, but his performance can not be measured without focusing on himself.
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.
Within parliamentary systems, the government i.e. the legislature consist of the political party with the most popularly elected Members of Parliament (MPs) in the main legislative parliament e.g. the House of Commons in the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister is appointed by the party to lead as the executive decision-maker, and the legislature work to support and carry out their will (Fish, 2006). In presidential systems, the President is directly elected with the support of their political party, with the legislative being separately elected and, in the case of the United States, being made up of representatives from different states (BIIP, 2004). This essay will provide examples to suggest that Presidents are generally more powerful than Prime Ministers. As two of the oldest forms of parliamentary and presidential governments (Mainwaring and Shugart, 1997), the United Kingdom and the United States will be the main focus of this essay, but other parliamentary and presidential countries will be mentioned.
There have been enormous efforts to spread democracy as a political system throughout the world by the developed democratic countries and the international development organizations including the World Bank. By the late 1990s the United States alone spent over a half billion dollars to promote democratic expansion throughout the world (Diamond, 2003). These were done considering that the democratic system leads towards development. As a result in the late 20th century we saw a huge political transformation towards democracy. During the last few decades a huge number of countries adopted democracy as their political system. However, it retain a big question how far democracy is successful in bringing development of a country? At this stage, some people also criticizes the effort of democratization arguing that it is done without considering the context of a country, sometimes democracy is not ideal for all countries and it is an effort to extinct diversity of political system. In studying the literature regarding the debate, we found a paradoxical relationship between democracy and development. Some argue that democracy has failed to ensure expected outcomes in terms of development. While others confronted that democracy has a considerable impact on development. Another group of people argue that form of political system actually does not have any impact on development process. On the verge of these debates, some development institutions and academics throw light on why democracy is not working properly, and what measure should be taken to make it more successful in bringing effective development of developing countries. Consequently, this writing is an effort of revisiting the different views about impact of democra...
During at elections one can notice a key difference between the two systems. In a parliamentary system the people of the nation elect a political party to represent their interests. Then the party that gains the majority of the votes elects, or may already have elected, someone to be their spokesperson who becomes the Prime Minister of said nation. In a presidential system, on the other hand, the people elect individual persons to become the President and members of the congress, in separate elections.
Throughout history different types of instrumental regimes have been in tact so civilizations remained structured and cohesive. As humanity advanced, governments obligingly followed. Although there have been hiccups from the ancient times to modern day, one type of government, democracy, has proven to be the most effective and adaptive. As quoted by Winston Churchill, democracy is the best form of government that has existed. This is true because the heart of democracy is reliant, dependent, and thrives on the populaces desires; which gives them the ability for maintaining the right to choose, over time it adjusts and fixes itself to engulf the prominent troubling issues, and people have the right of electing the person they deem appropriate and can denounce them once they no longer appease them. In this paper, the benefits of democracy are outlined, compared to autocratic communism, and finally the flaws of democracy are illustrated.