Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Difference between parliamentary and presidential systems of government
Difference between parliamentary and presidential systems of government
Difference between parliamentary and presidential systems of government
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In this paper I will compare and contrast the presidential and parliamentary institutional structures. I will also explain how they differ in the relationship of the executive, legislature and judiciary. I will discuss how the Canadian system should be identified and if its organization changed over time. The impact of the constitutional changes of 1982 with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and if it improved or eroded the quality of Canadian democracy will also be explained and in this paper.
A parliamentary system is “a system of governing in which there is a close interrelationship between the political executive (prime minister and Cabinet) and Parliament (the legislative or law-making body). He executive is generally composed of members of the House of Commons (the elected parliamentary body) and must maintain the support of the House of Commons.” (Mintz, 2012).
In a parliamentary system there is a responsible government which means that both the Cabinet and the prime minister who is the political executive are held accountable for the actions of the Parliament. For the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to remain in office must gain the support of the elected members of the Parliament. The Parliament in Britain is referred to as the Westminster system and the rule in this particular Parliament is a single party majority rule, executive dominance of Parliament, and an adversarial relationship between the governing party and the opposition (Mintz, 2012). India, Canada, Australia, and several Caribbean countries are made up based on the Westminster system of Britain but have a few differences. (Mintz, 2012).
Parliamentary systems usually have tight relationships of both legislative and executive powers. The power that the Cabin...
... middle of paper ...
...012). The fourth formula is responsible for the changes of the House of Commons and the Senate (A. Forsey, 2012). The Charter of Rights guarantees the following: democratic rights, freedom rights, legal rights, nobility rights, and minority language education (A. Forsey, 2012).
Bibliography/Work cited
1) Mintz, Eric, Osvaldo Croci, and David Close. Politics, power and the common good: an introduction to political science. 2nd ed. Toronto: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2012. Print.
2) Haggard, S., & McCubbins, M. D. (2001). Presidents, parliaments, and policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3) Cheibub, J. A. (2007). Presidentialism, parliamentarism, and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4) A. Forsey, E. (2012, 03). How Canadians govern themselves. Retrieved from http://www.parl.gc.ca/about/parliament/senatoreugeneforsey/book/chapter_2-e.html
For a democratic country to thrive, they must have a proper electoral system in producing the party to oversee our government. Since its inception in 1867, Canada has been using the first past the post system during elections to decide their leading party. Although we have been using this system for an extended duration of time, the FPTP system is flawed and should be changed. The goal of this paper is to prove the effectiveness of shifting to more of a proportional system, while also exposing the ineptness of Canada’s current system. With other methods advancing and little change of the first past the post system, this system is becoming predated. A variation of the proportional electoral system is key because it empowers voters, increases voter turnout, and creates a more diverse environment. Canada should adopt a more proportionate electoral system at the federal level if we wish to expand democracy.
Mintz Eric, Close David, Croc Osvaldo. Politics, Power and the Common Good: An Introduction to Political Science. 2009. Toronto: Pearson Canada. 15,147,183.
In Canada there are three branches of government: the executive branch which enforces Canadian laws and carries out government business; the legislative branch which debates and passes laws; and the judicial branch which interprets the laws and dictates how punishment should be carried out. In parliamentary government the executive branch is drawn from the legislative branch and is responsible to it. The responsibility lies in the fact that the government must have the confidence (or majority support) of the House of Commons in order to remain in power and this confidence is assured through party discipline; in other words, the party expects their Members of Parliament (MP’s) to vote the way the party votes.
However, the proposed systems must be thoroughly examined for their compatibility with Canada’s needs and their ability to resolve the issues outlined in this paper. From distortion in representation to Western alienation and to making the voices of minorities heard, the new system must also ensure that Parliament fulfills its role in representing, legislating, and holding the government. More importantly, after the current government abandoned its promise on electoral reform, it is important for researchers and future governments to build on the knowledge acquired by the Special Committee on Electoral Reform as well as previous experiences of the provinces with electoral
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.
The Canadian constitution is bereft of democratic legitimacy; an alluring term for political democratic deficit. Over the past years, the unsuccessful attempts to reform its laws have made passing new bills and regulations almost an unreachable goal for every newly elected prime minister. This inflexibility in adapting new laws made the fundamental principles of the Canadian constitution knew only few reforms. The lack of democratic accountability in the Canadian parliamentary democracy is demonstrated not only in its electoral system, but also in its national parliament and at the federal level of its politics. Many reforms must be addressed in order to make the Canadian democracy healthier.
The Prime Minister of Canada is given much power and much responsibility. This could potentially create a dangerous situation if the government held a majority and was able to pass any legislation, luckily this is not the case. This paper will argue that there are many limitations, which the power of the prime minister is subject too. Three of the main limitations, which the Prime Minister is affected by, are; first, federalism, second the governor general and third, the charter of rights and freedoms. I will support this argument by analyzing two different types of federalism and how they impact the power of the Prime Minister. Next I will look at three of the Governor Generals Powers and further analyze one of them. Last I will look at the impact of the charter from the larger participation the public can have in government, and how it increased the power of the courts.
Higgs, Robert. "POLITICS & PROSPERITY." POLITICS PROSPERITY. N.p., 01 Sept. 2010. Web. 12 May 2014.
Landy, Marc and Sidney M. Milkis. American Government: Balancing Democracy and Rights. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2004.
Schmidt, Shelley, and Bardes. American Politics and Government Today. Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1999, pgs. 325-327.
Canada’s parliamentary system is designed to preclude the formation of absolute power. Critics and followers of Canadian politics argue that the Prime Minister of Canada stands alone from the rest of the government. The powers vested in the prime minister, along with the persistent media attention given to the position, reinforce the Prime Minister of Canada’s superior role both in the House of Commons and in the public. The result has led to concerns regarding the power of the prime minister. Hugh Mellon argues that the prime minister of Canada is indeed too powerful. Mellon refers to the prime minister’s control over Canada a prime-ministerial government, where the prime minister encounters few constraints on the usage of his powers. Contrary to Mellon’s view, Paul Barker disagrees with the idea of a prime-ministerial government in Canada. Both perspectives bring up solid points, but the idea of a prime-ministerial government leading to too much power in the hands of the prime minister is an exaggeration. Canada is a country that is too large and complex to be dominated by a single individual. The reality is, the Prime Minister of Canada has limitations from several venues. The Canadian Prime Minister is restricted internally by his other ministers, externally by the other levels of government, the media and globalization.
Shapiro, Ian, Rogers M. Smith, and Tarek E. Masoud, eds. Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics. Cambridge ; Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Hoffman, J. & Graham, P. (2009), Introduction to Political Theory, 2nd Edition: London: Pearson Education Limited.
Landy, Marc and Sidney M. Milkis. American Government: Balancing Democracy and Rights. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2004.
Garner, R., Ferdinand, P. and Lawson, S. (2009) Introduction to Politics. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.