More handpicked essays just for you.
The difference and similarities between parliamentary and presidential forms of government
Parliamentary form of government vs presidential form of government
The functions of parliament
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Parliamentary System versus Presidential System
The way that a country is controlled by the government depends on the relationship between the legislative and executive authority. Most democratic nations, today, generally use one of two governmental systems, either a parliamentary system or a presidential system. Today most of Europe prefers to use a parliamentary system, whereas the presidential form of government is preferred in places such as South Korea, South America and the United States. The differences between these two governmental systems are not obvious at first, but there are some key differences. However, neither one of them is necessarily superior to the other.
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.
In a presidential system when all of the elections are complete the elected members are basically assured a full term of service in the government. The only way that an official can be removed from government is if an illegal act has been committed, through impeachment. In a parliamentary system, however, the people of the nation have the ability to vote a person in the government out of office if they are not satisfied. The opposition in the government are also able to vote someone out of office, in what is called a vote of no-confidence. If a member i...
... middle of paper ...
...idential veto of legislation.
As seen above there is quite a big difference in the way that the government is controlled in the two mentioned governmental styles. However, from what we have seen in nations so far one cannot say that one of the two systems can specifically be viewed as a superior or more liberal form of government. All one can say is that as democracy is becoming more and more popular around the world more and more nations are choosing to form their government according to one of the two above-mentioned ways. Both governments follow a fairly rigid system that endeavors to optimize the liberties of the people. Nations do not choose one of the two governments because it’s better but because it fits the nation’s citizens and culture better. Nowadays multiple countries even create a hybrid of the two types of governments to make it suit them the best.
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.
...sment of governance simply adds credibility to this argument by pointing out that both theories essentially outline how to progress from an autocratic state to a democratic government that will do what is best for the country. There are fundamental differences identifiable in the proposed governments within the texts and also room for debating weaknesses as neither proposal is perfect. However, the theory behind the models presented constrains the state and its citizens in a fair and effective way in order to form strong government.
Absolute monarchy (Absolutism), it is a form of monarchy in which a single ruler has supreme authority and it is not restricted by any written laws or customs. An example of absolutism monarchy is French King Louis XIV, Russian Tsar Peter the Great, or English King Henry VIII. Democracy is a system of government by elected representatives or officials. Example of democracy is the United States. These type of government exist in the 17th and 18th century in Europe. So the question is, which type of government was considered the most effective in Europe? In my opinion, I believe that absolutism was the most effective in Europe.
...lature by Judicial review and seats being held on good behavior. The Judicial has Executive branch by Judicial review and the Chief Justice is President of Senate during a presidential impeachment.
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
The Prime Minister is the Head of Government in Canada. Almost always, the Prime Minister is also the leader in the House of Commons, the assembly of ‘common’ people elected by the population to run government. Multiple steps are required to select a Prime Minister. First, there must be a vote of party members at a national convention that decide who will be their leader. If their party is already in power, or holds the majority of seats within Parliament, the chosen leader will assume the role of Prime Minister immediately. If not, the leader must lead the party through a successful election process to become Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is not elected directly by the entire population through the election. He or she is elected in an indirect manner when his or her party wins an election with the most seats in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister can lead the country for a maximum of five years before another election. However, historically and by tradition, most will call an election within four years depending on their perceived standing among the voters. If after four years, they feel that they are still held in high regard by the general public, and it is probable that they will maintain or enhance their power in government, the likelihood of calling...
The system of government we have today was starting to developed centuries ago by the Athenians and Romans. Both governments were established with the intent to give power to the people, even though it did not always play out that way in society. The Athenian democracy and the Roman republic were two very different governments in practice, but also maintained similar characteristics in both systems of government.
The two countries I have chosen to compare are China and Canada. Their systems of government are very different and have different powers and rolls in their country. Canada has a system of government very similar to our own. While china's government appears to be similar as well, but it is quite different. Canada's government democratic and is parliamentary in form but, very much like our own. Like all large governments it is representative democracy.
In the past, different civilizations have been ruled by different forms of government. The U.S. Democratic Republic, the Roman Republic, and the Athenian Democracy have similar and different functions of how they run their government.
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.
chance to decide on whom they want to lead them into the kind of peace
Professor Juan J. Linz’s main argument in his work, The Perils of Presidentialism, is that parliamentary systems are better at sustaining democracy than presidential systems. The article was written in 1990, but today the questioning of presidential versus parliamentary has stayed relevant as more people are publicly questioning American presidentialism as well as presidentialism as a whole. The author supports his claim by explaining the core weaknesses of presidential systems as compared to parliamentary and compliments this with examples of presidential failures of Latin American countries and the success of the 1977 Spanish parliamentary election. While the article cites the history of failure of presidential systems it fails to also include
There are two main types of political systems, one being a presidential system and the other being a parliamentary system. Both of them have their own benefits as well as their own disadvantages. No political system can be perfect or can always have stability, but shown in history there are successful countries that use either one. Also there are countries that have failed with one of the two systems.
This fusion of power allows the people’s representatives in the legislature to directly engage the executive in debates discussion in issues that will bring positive development in the state. This is not possible in the presidential system since the legislative and the executives arms are constitutionally separated and thereby restricted to engage the legislature in a discussion in which reasons are advanced against some proposition or proposal. The outcome is that party leaders in parliamentary system are more reliable than those in presidential systems. Presidential systems have turned the aim of electoral campaign into personalities rather than platform and programs because the focus is on the candidate and not on the party in general. But parliamentary systems on the other hand focus much more relating structured they do not do anything outside the scope of the party. We can compare the quality of leadership or administration in British, Canadian prime minister to the United State president. In all the country presidential system of government are chosen because people think been a good leader is by popularity and the ability to win election not minding if the candidate is fit for the task of presidency. But in parliamentary system, the person that has high quality of leadership competent enough and trustworthy is