The voters vote for parties rather than candidates. In th... ... middle of paper ... ... government can vary greatly from country to country. In this system, when the President and Premier are from different political parties, the government is cohabited. If the president's party win the elections, the system resembles the presidentialism, where Premier is "weak" and state policy is executed by President. In opposite, if the president's party loses elections, President just becomes a figurehead, delegates the comptences to the Premier.
The cabinet is chosen by the president instead of chosen by the parliament. A president has to follow a constitution rather than following history. The president actually has a large part in the government’s decisions. A big advantage to political scientists of the presidential system is that there is a separation of powers. The legislative branch being separate from the executive branch lets one another keep checks and balances on each other.
But there is no consensus of which system is better. I think firstly it is important to understand the theory behind all these debates. Theoretical background Parliamentarism and presidentialism are commonly, and correctly, set in opposition as distinguishable systems of governance that exhibit distinguishable structural features .Lijphart outlines three main differences between presidential and parliamentary systems: a) in parliamentary systems the head of government requires the confidence of the legislature in order to stay in power, while in a presidential system the President remains in power for a fixed period of time (four years); b) in a presidential system, the electorate votes directly for the President, while in a parliamentary system leaders are selected by the party; and c) in a parliamentary system the Prime Minister as well as his cabinet make up the executive, in a presidential system, the President alone is a one-person executive. Comparative analysis of parliamen... ... middle of paper ... ...ntary system is more effective for the states which is ethnically, racially, or ideologically divided into many parts, so in this system of government, parliament is so colorful. 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.
When a committee favors a measure, usually it seeks the opinion of executive agencies, conducts hearings to gather more information and will reconvene to discuss amendments and influences of representatives outside the Committee. When they reach an agreement, the proposal goes to the Chamber. Once the Senate and the House of representatives approved its version of the same proposal, the measure is aimed at president who can enact or veto it. The congress can revoke the veto with a two-thirds majority. By contrast, the Executive power the president propose bills to Congress, he enforces federal laws, he is Commander in Chief of the armed forces, and with the approval of the Senate, the president defines treaties and appoints federal judges, ambassadors and other members of the secretariats of the Executive branch (Department of Defense, Commerce, Justice, State, etc.).
The President, unlike a monarch cannot make treaties on his own. “The king of Great Britain is the sole and absolute representative of the nation in all foreign transactions.” (The Federalist No.69) The President, in contrast receives some input from his acquaintances. With consent and approval of two-thirds of the senate, the president may make a treaty with a foreign country. (The Federalist No.69) Also... ... middle of paper ... ...ese without the advising of Congress and other government officials. The vote of the people of the country is also crucial and determines how long the president can keep his job.
In essence the judge would only be able to reflect the view of the legislature through his interpretation of the laws that had been reconfigured by the legislative branch. The current unbalance of power within Great Britain’s government shows how the government can be viewed as a parliamentary-dictatorship due the prominent power that the Prime Minister has over the rest of the government through controlling both the executive branch and parliament, which is composed of both the House of Lords and The Commons. After more substantial reform the government in the United Kingdom has come to a more unified status; however, there is still arguably a parliamentary dictatorship in Great Britain despite recent reform due to the control of the prime minister though policy making and implementation. Great Britain is arguably a parliamentary dictatorship due to the immense power that the Prime Minister and his party have over government relative to their opposition. The Prime Minister’s hold of office depends upon his party having the m... ... middle of paper ... ...as a overwhelming influence on how the government operates.
A representative government is when power is controlled by the people. Through elected officials and representatives, they make decisions on the people’s behalf in the government. Decisions are made through a majority rules voting system, the Senate votes on the issue, then the president turns the bill into a law. In this form of government, the elected representatives hold the power because they are the ones who make resolutions to the citizen’s wishes. Laws are created by the legislative branch, then the law is enforced through the executive branch.
Most of the creation is down to congressional committees - specialist groups of congressman who revise and investigate laws into their own committee's interests, for example The House Science Committee. Some of the legislation can come from the president directly, however it is congress that filter's it, so in theory the president's proposed bill could never be heard in either house. Constitutional ammendments also work in this way, a president can suggest them, but only congress can initiate them. During the process of a bill becoming a law, congress plays a huge part. Both houses have the first reading, committee stage, the time tabling, the second and third reading before it heads to a conference committee.
This function is executed by professional independent judges whose roles are exercised in criminal and civil courts. Critiques argue whether or not a strict separation should be present in each of the above stated functi... ... middle of paper ... ...the 95 inbuilt votes of parliament. Fewer members of parliament will take up government posts and remain in the cabinet or Houses. Balanced and accountable separation supports the perception of the majority in the legislative body acting independently of the executive. The traditional Prime Minister whose powers of patronage include; control over government structure, chairing of cabinet meetings and being the public face of government creating media attention and expectation of his somewhat presidential control over ‘his’ government.
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.