Carlos Pereira and Marcus Andre Melo propelled ideas that elegantly advocated a presidential system of government for democratic stability. On the other hand, pure parliamentarianism has been chosen as a recommendation for the better political alternative in the arguments fostered by Alfred Stephan with Skach. A striking opinion seems to be so inclusive here as both positions paddle with the flair of multipartism. However, this essay evaluates these arguments for either conformity or divergence (Pereira and Melo 156-170; Stepan and Skach 1-22).
Pereira and Melo came up with an interesting view when they powered the concept of mutual coexistence between presidentialism and multipartism. They, however, highlighted on the past ordeal suffered
…show more content…
Hence, they decried that except for Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic, who favored pure parliamentarianism between the 1980s and 1990s, the Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union came under pure presidentialism. In their argument, they admonished that the sudden rush by the several government into the pure presidential system of democratic government should be given a second thought. They strengthened their assertion by insinuating that the mutual independence nature of the pure presidential system of democratic government would instigate the tendency for political stalemate sandwiched between the legislative arm and the chief executive. Consequently, this hitch would last for “eternity” as there are no known legal institutions or policies available to check this imminent development. This might portend the possibility of a military coup. These discoveries brought them to encourage the use of the pure parliamentarianism as a better …show more content…
In their argument, two–party presidential system and multiparty parliamentarianism cannot in any wise be equated with the multiparty presidentialism. They augmented that parliamentary system of government practically presents some challenges though it claims to resolve the political deadlock. It would involve ongoing desire for majority consent from the legislature, the hopes of transforming the polity or demanding for the new electoral process, and better transparency in the election. Conversely, they stressed that the multiparty presidential system has more to deliver. Besides, multipartism in conjunction with presidentialism would enhance political inclusion. As a result, countries where you are faced severe discrimination, and communal diversity would find this combination a resting place (Pereira and Melo
“ … we… need an alternative to winner-take-all majoritarianism… with Nikolas’s help… I call [this] the ‘principle of taking turns.’ [It] does better than simple majority rule… it accommodates the values of self-government, fairness, deliberation, compromise, and consensus that lie at the heart of the democratic ideal” (para.
This is supported by the fact that all of Gorbachev’s reforms were voted into law by all the nation’s political apparatus like the politburo, the Central Committee and the two congresses who voluntarily reduced their own powers and created a democratic avenue of appointment to these bodies. The nation’s administrative apparatus took its cues from Gorbachev and was moving without too much opposition towards a free-er more democratic
A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.
The authors describe some of the advantages of a MMP system: “Mixed electoral systems provide fairly proportional outcomes, maintain the geographic link between constituents and members, provide for greater choice, and allow the opportunity for smaller parties to represented in Parliament” (p. 11). This system works better than the current FPTP or plurality system, because it allows citizen’s a second opportunity to have a voice. This is important because it would allow our minority groups to have a greater political influence. As mentioned earlier, in the current system all votes for candidates who lost, were insignificant to the election outcome. The authors explain: “Only those votes that go to the eventual winner count towards electing a representative, which may discourage people from voting or promote disaffection with the system” (p. 3). Alternatively, the MMP system allows citizen’s a second opportunity to elect party members in order to proportionally represent the popular
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.
...y remain unchanged. In particular this shows that freedom and equality—even if both are defined in terms of power—yield different criteria for the ranking of political systems. The fact that both these notions can be defined in terms of power does not imply that the comparison of political systems in these two dimensions can be `reduced' to one, more basic criterion formulated in terms of exertions of power.
Canada runs on a democratic model of governing based on the British parliamentary system. Its parliament is thus divided into two chambers: the House of Commons and the Senate. Elected politicians are seated within The House of Commons while the Senate occupies qualified citizens which are appointed by the Prime Minister. Parliament’s purpose is to hold responsibility for passing legislations and the choosing of government, referring to the political party with the largest amount of seats. Depending on the results of the election, Canada has the potential of having either a majority, minority or in the rare case a coalition government. Customarily, an election in Canada usually ends up forming a majority government. The party with more than
Is the purpose of government today, similar to that of philosophers of the past, or has there been a shift in political thought? This essay will argue that according to Machiavelli’s The Prince, the purpose of government is to ensure the stability of the state as well as the preservation of the established ruler’s control, and that the best form of government should take the form of an oligarchy. In contrast, in his book, Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes argues that the purpose of government should be to preserve the peace and security of men and, that the best form of government would be an absolute monarchy which would sanction such conditions. This essay will utilize themes of glory, material advantage, peace and stability to illustrate
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.
So we have looked at various different Political Ideologies that have developed in modern times however not one of them proves itself to be superior to another. They all have certain strength’s and weakness to be taken advantage of by all governments. It is best to understand that different political ideologies serve different purposes, and that governments must remain ideologically flexible depending on current national conditions.
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
As we all know, Philippine government is patterned based on American government. US colonization brought us the bicameralism where there are now two legislative chambers in the government to decentralize the hold of political power. Unfortunately, the values of debt-of-gratitude and pakikisama had been helpful in lifting the caciques up to politics: the nepotism yielded by the the tight kinship ties made sure that the power remains
Plato, Aristotle and Machiavelli have spent their lives in assertion of which form of government is good and who should be ruler, what type of ...
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.
For many years, Philippine politics have been viewed as a political disappointment as a result of graft, corruption, political dynasties, political killings and election anomalies. On the other hand, politicians are not by any stretch of the imagination to render public services but to learn fast and gain a self-advantage. This is exactly why it is particularly worth making all the required capital interests in looking for an elective position that is why governmental issues in the Philippine is an exceptionally productive speculation. This essay will explain why Philippine politics today is characterized by anomalies and controversies that result to high percentage