Misconception no. 1—Semi-presidentialism is a regime type midway between presidentialism and parliamentarism
It is not uncommon to hear people referring to semi-presidentialism as a hybrid regime, a mixed regime (Cheibub 2010), or, worse, a ‘bastard’ regime (Bahro and Veser 1995). In one sense, there is nothing unproblematic with such a description, or at least perhaps with the first two. After all, if we define presidentialism as the situation where there is a directly elected, or popularly elected, fixed-term president and where the government is not collectively responsible to the legislature, and if we define parliamentarism as the situation where there is either a monarch or an indirectly elected president and where the prime minister
This is when it is classed as a regime that is midway between presidentialism and parliamentarism, or, as Shugart and Carey (1992: 23) put it, “a regime type that is located midway along some continuum running from presidential to parliamentary”. We agree with Shugart and Carey that the temptation to think of semi-presidentialism in this way comes from the use of the prefix ‘semi’, meaning half of something. While it is perhaps true that a semi-detached house is only half as free-standing as its detached neighbor down the road, and that the World Cup final includes only half the number of teams as the semi-finals, this does not mean that semi-presidentialism is necessarily either half as presidential as presidentialism or half as parliamentary as parliamentarism. What scale is being used? Does an invitation to a semi-formal dinner really mean that half of your clothes are expected to be formal and the other half informal? If so, which half? In other words, while the root of the term ‘semi’ does mean half, the term is also used in cases where it no longer has this specific numerical implication. Thus, we agree with Shugart and Carey that this way of thinking about semi-presidentialism is mistaken. To do so is, in political science terms, to treat regime types as a continuous or at least discrete variable. Yet, regimes types do not possess the values that allow us to think about them
This reform kept the basic parliamentary system of the 1958 Constitution intact, including the collective responsibility of the government to the National Assembly, but introduced the direct election of the president. This reform had long been sought after by President Charles de Gaulle and particular events in 1962 gave him the opportunity to propose a referendum to bring about such a change. The change was subsequently approved in the popular vote. President de Gaulle was returned to power in the first direct election in 1965 and he remained in office for another 4 years. De Gaulle’s presidential successors lacked his personal authority, but by then the expectation of presidential leadership had become the norm. As we have also noted, France came to be the ideational default case of semi-presidentialism. Therefore, when scholars pictured a semi-presidential regime, they pictured a post-1962 Gaullist-type system with a president with ‘quite considerable’ powers who was in a position to exercise decisive leadership, though in conjunction with a parliamentary-style prime minister who was fundamentally loyal but who also enjoyed at least some independent political authority by virtue of having the confidence of
...he end, the analysis conducted above makes it clear that neither Neustadt’s nor Skowronek’s theories are unified theories of the Presidency which are capable of explaining the full range of variation as it pertains to Presidential records and histories. Rather, each theory is best conceptualized of as representing a single sphere of the Presidency, and each thus serves to potently explain Presidentially-related phenomena which fall within their scope conditions and reach. With this in mind, it is difficult to conceive of a single theory being capable of explaining the full gamut of variation associated with the Presidency. Rather, and as elaborated upon above, each is most successful in the context of its scope conditions, and theoretical hybridization likely represents the best pathway towards explaining the full gamut of variation associated with the Presidency.
...hold absolute power but is equally controlled by the actions of the people as they are considered to be a servant for the people.
The France practically changed from being an absolute monarchy to a republic overnight. Everything that the people of France had ever known was changed in a heart-beat. Their once beloved king had just been guillotined and it was now time to set up a new political system. The leaders of the revolution, the Jacobins, imagined a representative government that ruled on the principals of “liberte,” “egalite,” and “fraternity,” liberty, equality and broth...
There has not been a true pure polity regime that has existed throughout the centuries. The
In history, governments have endeavored to rule their subjects. Major forms of authority consist primarily of monarchy, absolute monarchy, oligarchy, democracy, tyranny, theocracy, and republic. By examining the main faults of each government, the republic is clearly the superior form.
Oligarchy is valued above a democracy although they are both ruled by the appetite of the soul. Those within an oligarchy pursue necessary appetites whereas democratic individuals pursue unnecessary appetites. Rulers are present...
Totalitarianism is the term that is used to describe the political system where the government holds total authority ove...
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.
In modern history, there have been some governments, which have successfully, and others unsuccessfully carried out a totalitarian state. A totalitarian state is one in which a single ideology is existent and addresses all aspects of life and outlines means to attain the final goal, government is ran by a single mass party through which the people are mobilized to muster energy and support. In a totalitarian state, the party leadership maintains monopoly control over the governmental system, which includes the police, military,
... voted into the new republic. “France was a republic, but one now in the hands of an assembly dominated by conservatives, many of whom were monarchists”7.
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
very efficient form of government, and so is a oligarchy, but in those governments it can be very
In a presidential system, the President (who is the chief executive as well as the symbolic head of government) is chosen by a separat...
Rourke (2008) points out that the form of government most common throughout the history of man was authoritarian; leaders were an individual or group of people who exercised control. The people these leaders ruled had little opportunity to contribute to t...
The topic of this essay is „Presidential systems – strenghts and weaknesses.“ I chose this topic because I am very interested into the comparison of presidential and parliamentary systems. For quiet a long time, I have been trying to figure out which one is better for countries. This essay might be a good stepping stone for me to figure it out.