A political institution is a system of politics and government. It is usually compared to the law system, economic system, cultural system, and other social systems. It is different from them, and can be generally defined on a spectrum from left, i.e. communism and socialism to the right, i.e. fascism. Linz’s argument is on the description of Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes, which brings the main and important argument of explaining both Presidential and Parliamentary systems. Another important author whose thoughts were referred to political institutions is Seymour Martin Lipset. His argument emphasizes on political cultural-cultural factors rather than political systems. The last individual whose main arguments refer to politics and political institutions is Donald Horowitz. He describes that Linz claims are not sustainable because it is regionally skewed and highly selective sample.
According to all three professors Seymour Martin Lipset, Juan Linz, Donald Horowitz, they are strongly suggesting their main politically argument based on the concept of presidential and parliamentary system. The stability of presidential system is that two-candidate races in multiparty systems produce coalitions including extremist parties. The balance between branches varies and with fixed term in office comes the risk of ‘vouloir conclure’. The parliamentary system’s stability describes that it has superior historical performance to presidential system. This is especially in societies with political cleavages-multiple parties. The continuity of this party is power and there is duration of coalition.
The articles point out the adaptability between the two systems and how they differ from each other. The presidential system is a fixed term in office that does not allow for some political adjustments to require some events. In this system, there is no democratic principle existing to solve dispute between executive-legislative branches. There is also less inclined to consensus building because compromises look negative to others. In parliamentary system, the adaptability for the system is that the cabinet crises are easily solved.
The last criterion on the differences between these two systems is the checks and balances between the two systems. The presidential system winner-takes-all politics makes politics a zero-sum game where the fixed mandate identifies losers and winners for the entire period. There is no moderating power involved and the presidents avoid coalitions with opponents because it could weaken them. The president has unlimited independent power, which they can appeal directly to the people and might think he/she represents the society as a whole even if he/she can be elected by a minority of people, which is the heavy reliance on personal qualities.
In conclusion, it is for sure that the competitive party systems give a plenty of advantages in case of the improvements in the political, economic and civic welfares. But the modern party competition is not based solely on the ideology competition in many states, particularly in those developed countries with the long-standing democracies (USA, UK, most European countries). The facts in support of this argument are next: the changing proportion of mass-cadre parties, globalization, the increasing role of mass media, the domination of the middle class. In this essay the definition of the party, party systems was provided. The arguments for the main conclusion were represented and discussed in detail what resulted in the aforementioned conclusion.
Elazar’s political culture typology divides state political culture into three dominant categories: moralist, individualist, and traditionalist. Moralists measure government by its commitment to the public good and concern for public welfare.
Political scientists have continually searched for methods that explain presidential power and success derived from using that power effectively. Five different approaches have been argued including the legal approach, presidential roles approach, Neustadtian approach, institutional approach, and presidential decision-making approach. The legal approach says that all power is derived from a legal authority (U.S. Constitution). The presidential roles approach contends that a president’s success is derived from balancing their role as head of state and head of government. The Neustadtian approach contends that “presidential power is the power to persuade“ (Neustadt, p. 11). The institutional approach contends that political climate and institutional relations are what determines presidential power. The last approach, decision-making, provides a more psychological outlook that delves into background, management styles, and psychological dispositions to determine where a president’s idea of power comes from. From all of these, it is essential to study one at a time in order to analyze the major components of each approach for major strengths and weaknesses.
Political science first emerged as an academic discipline towards the end of the 19th century and mainly focused on formal institutions, structures and organizations within government (Theodore Rosenhof, 1). However, at the end of the 1920’s this approach towards institutions began to be revised. Soon a behavioral approach towards government surfaced which focused on electoral patterns and voting behavior (Theodore Rosenhof, 1). In using this approach, many academics recognized an alarming amount of movements and change across the state resulting in a dynamic, rather than a stagnant, political network. These establishments and generalizations made by academics eventually culminated in what is presently known as the realignment theory (Theodore Rosenhof, 1).
The Constitution lays out power sharing amongst the President and Congress. However the Constitution is not always clearly defined which leaves questions to how the laws should be interpreted and decisions implemented. There are three major models of presidenti...
During the second half of the past century the notion that, political science should be treated as a science became extremely popular among academics specially in the United States. One of the most prominent exposers of this school of thought was Anthony Downs, who developed a theorem to explain in a rather economic sense, how and why voters behave in a certain way when it comes to voting. Downs did not only applied his theory to the way voters behave, he also used it to explain the way political parties align themselves when it comes to elections in a two and a multiparty system nevertheless this essay will analyze Downs’ claims about a two party system only. This essay argues that the Downs’ model has proven to be accurate in many cases throughout history, nevertheless it makes a series of assumptions about voters and parties that can not be considered realistic neither in 1957, when he published his paper An Economic Theory of Political Action in Democracy in 1957 nor in 2013. This essay also acknowledges that fact that this theory might help to explain how parties behave but it is by no means the only explanation. Furthermore this essay will prove that it is a multiplicity of factors rather than an economic theory what can help us understand why parties behave the way they do. In order to support the argument previously stated this essay will state and critically analyze a number of Downs assumptions, then his theory will be outlined. Then it will carefully consider how effective it has been at predicting the way in which parties align themselves by examining the behavior of political parties during general elections in different countries.
In conclusion, there are different methods and approaches for studying the presidency. All of these approaches contribute in some way to the study of the presidency and increase our understanding of the president, his behavior, his power, and the institution of the presidency itself. However, I believe that future presidential research within political science should focus on being more systematic and scientific. Although historical studies and case studies are helpful for understanding specific presidents, they are not necessarily helpful for understanding the institution of the presidency in general. I think future research should focus on an institutional approach that also considers personal characteristics representing important aspects of presidential power.
Discussions of which constitutional form of government best serves the growing number of democratic nation’s are being debated around the world. In the essay “The Perils of Presidentialism”, political scientist, Juan Linz compares the parliamentary with presidential systems as they govern 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 President is elected directly by the
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.
Shapiro, Ian, Rogers M. Smith, and Tarek E. Masoud, eds. Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics. Cambridge ; Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Political Philosophy is typically a study of a wide range of topics such as, justice, liberty, equality, rights, law, politics and the application of a codified law. Depending on what the philosophy is, it usually tends to be a very sensitive and a personal ideology that an individual holds within the reality of their existence. Several of the fundamental topics of political philosophy shape up the society that we live in as these specific topics and their implementation by the state ensures a legitimate government. In Political Philosophy, the aforesaid concepts or topics are evaluated and analyzed with tremendous depth in context to their history and intent. Furthermore, in a rather colloquial sense, political philosophy is generally a point of view which after some deep thinking asks questions such as, what are the government’s duties? Is it legitimate? What makes it legitimate? What are the duties of its citizens? What are their rights? Are they protected? So on and so forth. In the following paper, I will canvass my political philosophy and elaborate on my reasoning behind it.
From the beginning of ancient history the main question for political philosophy is how a human being exists in society, who should govern the society, how should the society be governed, who are the best rulers and how should they behave themselves, what is just and what is unjust, is better to be governed through just or not, how should the states be structured? These are main questions in political philosophy, that until today are strictly discussed. The major tasks of political philosophers are to analyze the nature of human being and to evaluate the ways in which an individual relates with society he lives in. The study of human nature is one of the most important aspects of political science and philosophy. In the process of creating a form of governance it is essential to understand the innate characteristics of human nature in order to avoid a bad government for all society and to achieve the ways how people should be governed most effectively. From the ancient time the roots of justification of political power were tied to sights of human nature.
What Is Politics On hearing the word politics, what usually springs to mind are images of government, politicians and their policies or more negatively the idea of corruption and dirty tricks. The actual definition seems to have been obscured and almost lost by such representations and clichés that tend not to pinpoint the true essence, which defines this thing, called politics. In order to make an attempt at a definition of politics a systematic approach is required. To begin with, a brief historical overview will be considered, to understand the origins of politics. Following this, different core concepts, which are imperative to a definition of politics, will be discussed, in the hope to discover a true and fair interpretation of the word politics.
According to Linz (1990), he called “The perils of presidentialism” focuses mainly on the general problem of presidential system rather than focusing on its specific sub-type like semi presidential systems. He argues, “The superior historical performance of parliamentary democracies is not accident” (Linz 1990:258). He also said that from the performance of both government systems one can conclude that parliamentary system of government performs better and accomplishes a stable democracy rather, presidential systems, especially in deeply divided societies. (Linz