The president can not dissolve an assembly as one can in a parliamentary system. Also in a presidential system there is the judicial branch, which is the court system. The judicial branch is important because it helps uphold the constitution. One of the last advantages of a presidential system is that there is more stability because a president is elected to a fixed term, where as in a parliamentary system a prime minister can be ousted at any time. A presidential system is not perfect, but it has it’s high and low points.
Some advantages of a Presidential system would be constancy and strength. A set term presidency is more stable than a prime minister who can be dismissed at any time. A prime minister is only in office for as long as he has the support of his own party, he can be dismissed without reference to the voters. Another advantage would be direct consent where in a Presidential system; the president is often elected directly by the people. A major disadvantage to Presidential systems would be that the separation of powers in the presidential form of governance shows an incomplete level of responsibility and the legislature and executive branches end up blaming each other.
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.
Although, president reserves some key competences. Generally, the members of government are also members of parliament, and accountable to Parliament. If the government doesn't get the vote of confidence, it can be dismissed by the Parliament or achieves the appointment of new elections to government. Such republics often have proportional electoral systems. The voters vote for parties rather than candidates.
On the other hand, in a presidential system the head of government, (who is also the head of state) can only be removed from office by impeachment, a rather large ordeal compared to the forced resignation of a Prime Minister. This allows for a much more effective government, as when a particular government is no longer able to pass legislation in a reasonable and timely manner, an election must then be called. A new and effective leadership can then be put in place, with the overall and long term result being a generally more stable government. In both systems, as they are both democratic, the members of government are elected by the people, but in very different ways. One elects the president in one election and their representatives in another, while on the other... ... middle of paper ... ...Coproration.
The parliamentary system has historically performed better than the presidential system in terms of democratic stability, according to Linz, “due to an institutional design that can sustain democratic governance in countries with multiple parties and deep political and social cleavages.” Linz offers several reasons to explain why parliamentary systems generate greater democratic stability. Prime minister (P.M) and parliament work together on legislation to pass a bill and it is much easier. According to Teachers’ Curriculum Institute, the political party that wins a majority of the seats in the legislative branch forms a new administration. If no single party wins a majority, several parties join together to form the legislative branch of the
The head of government, in another word, chief executive, in the other hand, seen as the ones who are the head of nation’s legislature and holding the actual powers on governing affairs. In the presidential government, those two roles, head of state and the head of government are overlapped and joined in a single person. While in the parliamentar... ... middle of paper ... ... Australian Prime Minister, in some ways, has imported practices for the American president. However, the Prime Minister seems to be able to compete with president as it has increasing power in hand and ability in dealing national affair by its decisions. Because of the independent legislature, the members of the Congress can have meaningful political career, and have real power to influence public policy which unlike that in Australian parliament, the party members need the support of the party leader if they want to influence the state.
But to me it creates a messy situation and also decreases the efficiency for enacting laws, because members have different ideology which leads to long discussions. This colourful situation causes flexibility and instability of the parliament. As executive has no power to make opposite effect to the legislative, the despotism can be established. Presidential system is more stabile in comparison with the parliamentary form government. Because president is elected directly by the people and his tenure of office is expressed in the constitution.
Something based on this belief may well be valid but with numerous pieces of evidence that suggest the traditional role of the British Prime Minister is becoming more presidential and modern society adhering less to written convention, it has become far less clear who wields the most domestic power outside of conventional parameters. Both the UK Prime Minister and US president are the key figures in their countries politics. The UK Prime Minister has no formal written role but is rather a product of convention and historical evolution. His main powers include those of patronage, the control of the cabinet and its agenda, and the overall direction of government policy, both of head of government and leader of the party in power. In contrast, the US president has an official outlined role.
For example, as (Collier 1959) remarked, the passage of a piece of legislation signed by the president may be different than the original bill introduced in the Congress. Yet, the president can still claim political victory after the bill passes. In addition, during divided government, when party control is divided between the branches, success in terms of outcomes measures may fail to capture the full picture of which player was really preventing the objective of the