Every country differs in their preference of political system to govern their countries. For democratic countries, two possible choices of governing are the presidential system and the parliamentary system. Since both the presidential and the parliamentary systems have their own strengths and weaknesses, many scholars have examined these two forms of government, and debate on which political system is more successful in governance. In this paper, I will first provide a detailed analysis of both the parliamentary and the presidential system. I will also evaluate each system’s strengths and weaknesses, addressing any differences as well as any commonalities. Finally, I will conclude by using historical examples to analyze and support the presidential system, which would be a more desirable system for a democratic government.
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 ...
... middle of paper ...
...Maureen. Parliament: Canada’s democracy and how it works. Toronto: Random House Canada, 1995.
Shively, W. Phillips. Power and choice: an introduction to political science. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995.
Shugart, Matthew Soberg. Presidents and assemblies: constitutional design and electoral dynamics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Smith, Raymond A. American Anomaly: U.S. Politics and Government in Comparative Perspective. Taylor & Francis US, 2010.
Szilagyi, Ilona Maria. Presidential versus parliamentary systems. Volume 8, No.2. 307-314. Budapest Hungary: Miklos Zrinyi National Defence University, 2009.
Tavits, Margit. Direct Presidential Elections and Turnout in Parliamentary Contests. St. Louis: Washington University, 2009.
Tavits, Margit. Presidents with prime ministers: do direct elections matter? New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Ahead in the book, I discover that Norway, Sweden and Denmark nullified their second chambers, choosing that bicameralism was no more essential. In reality, even the House of Lords in England has had its energy fundamentally decreased through time and as Dahl says, "The fate of that old chamber stays in extensive uncertainty." The purposes behind these bicameral contemplations in the constitution need to do with accommodating equivalent representation.
The ideology of parliamentary sovereignty represents a constitutional order that acknowledges the necessary power of government, while placing legal limits and conditions upon its excise due to the Rule of Law, developed by the judiciary in cases such as Pickin v British Railways Board [1974] AC 765. The Diceyan theory represents a definition of parliamentary sovereignty. A general summary recalls that,
In comparison to the American System of government, other nations such as Britain, France, Canada, and Mexico are quite similar. The British Parliamentary system does not have two houses of the legislature; however it has the upper house called the House of Lords, which were comprised of Britain as in dukes, earls, viscounts, barons, and bishops.
Canada’s friendly neighbor to the South, the US, has an electoral system that is composed of 3 separate elections, one of them deciding the head of state. The president elected by the people and he or she is the determining person of the country’s political system. In the US runs like a majority system” In Canada, however, elections are held slightly differently. Citizens vote for a Member of Parliament in a 308-seat house and candidates win not by a majority, unlike in the US, but by a plurality. This means that a candidate can actually win by simply having more votes than the other candidates. This method of representative democracy, in general, does not cause too much controversy in a global scope but has caused controversy in a Canadian scope. With many critics of the Canadian election system calling it archaic and non-modern, the idea of reforming the election system has been in discussion numerous times. In 2004 by the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, created by the government of British Columbia, brought into question the current first past the post system. In an alternative state at which the Canadian election system is changed, a different set of questions is brought to the table. How can changes to the electoral system affect how the House of Commons is run and its respective procedures? In this essay, I will be discussing the possible effects of changing the Canadian electoral system on the House of Commons.
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.
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.
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 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.
This paper discusses what type of government uses this kind of organization, when the idea of the three branches was introduced to our country, Montesquieu and his
Political society today, has taken many lessons from Plato and Aristotle’s political ideas. As was the case in Ancient Greece, there are many different political ideologies and regimes that will may serve the purpose for one society, but in another, could cause utter chaos. Aristotle attributed the need for there being a number of political regimes due to the fact that there are “many parts to a city.” (4.3.1) The many parts to a city that he was referring to, simply enforces the necessity of having different forms of office for each of these parts. Not every method will work for each society. Aristotle’s concepts of political regimes have deeply rooted itself in society today. In order to understand the concepts of regime as suggested by Aristotle, this paper will consider the three different types; royalty, aristocracy, and constitutional government, as well as each of their deviations.
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
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))
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.
In a Parliamentary system there is a power concentration instead of division of powers. The Legislature is the greatest power, the government and the executive branch is dependent on Parliament. In contrast to Presidential systems, parliamentary and semi-presidential democracies have Legislative responsibility. Legi...