Presidential system of Ghana
In Ghana there is an existence of a single executive (Lartey and Aning, 2009:7). Meaning that the executive is the head of the state and government simultaneously so. Their system is presidential because they have fixed terms of office, the president is democratically and directing elected by the people and has the direct responsibility to serve the, the powers of the executive are independent of those of the legislature. He is also given the power to appoint his own cabinet. Ghana has the “doctrine of separation of powers as one of its key attributes” (Lartey and Aning, 2009:7). This means that Ghana has three branches of government being the legislature, executive and judiciary whom are under the system of checks
…show more content…
Ghana changed its presidential system due to its attainment of independence. The main reason was to find a system of governance for it as a relatively small country and the presidential system matched the demands wanted from the new system.
The cry and atmosphere of Pan-Africanism endorsed by Nkwame Nkrumah during and after the struggle for independence, enable him to take over the government and formed an unofficial political structure of a single part state within an official state. Nkrumah hence has supreme powers over the other organs of the state, this concentration of power on him wasn’t good for the country and its governance. This led to the transition to presidential system.
The rule and overthrowing of government by Military rule endorsed this transition as well. When the military overthrew the government it took away the rule of the people through their elected representatives. It was not healthy for good governance and trampled over the human rights.
Effects of the
…show more content…
There was a need to grant the president with the formal powers away from the legislative authority was seen. This powers lead to efficiency and good governance.
Effects of the presidential system
Before Zambia inherited the presidential system it was under a very weak traditional based political system. This system made it harder for Zambia to stand and survive the new system, in fact the state became very weak and lacked capacity. Meaning that Zambia wasn’t ready for the presidential system and hence failed to meet the political, economic and social needs of the people.
Issue of ethnicity are a global problem. In Zambia ethnic conflict delayed progress and led to violence. This resulted due to the hunger for controlling resources as they were scarce. Different ethnic group wanted different things with regards to power, governance and control of those
... his executive power and increased the power of executive branch even though he had original beliefs that the president should not be too strong. Jefferson promising a “Republican Revolution” followed the Federalists path ended increasing debt as well as the power of the executive branch.
... This precedent allows future presidents to take actions strictly forbidden by the executive branch in times of national emergency without congressional approval. The most important expansion of the power of the presidency happened during the Jackson administration. When Jackson used the veto power of the president to influence legislation as a matter of policy and not constitutionality, he arguably altered the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches.
It is obvious the president was not given enough power under the Constitution. This is in part because Article II of the Constitution was written in a short period of time with little thought. Many presidents have had to make unclear decisions with little information about the circumstance in the Constitution and the president is beginning to take over the government due to increasing implied powers. However the president’s power has recently proven that it has outgrown the constitution and is swiftly evolving. The Constitution gave the president broad but vague powers, including the authorization to appoint judges and other officials with the Senate’s consent, veto bills, lead the military as commander and chief and make sure “that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Many of these powers however are shared with the Legislative Branch, and cause conflict within the government.
One of the biggest examples used in the article for expansion of presidential power is George W. Bush. After 9/11 occurred, the overwhelming emergency brought Bush to do what ever he could to secure the country and make the American
Africa in all its existence to Europe has relied on others to decide what’s best for them. Africa is now in a Western style mode. This does not mean it should be there but it is now. The government has to start taking advantage of today’s capitalist economy. Money tends to keep people of all nations happier. With money everyone is guaranteed food, a home and a better chance at democracy.
Discussions of which constitutional form of government best serves the growing number of democratic nation’s are being debated around the world. In the essay “The Perils of Presidentialism”, political scientist, Juan Linz compares the parliamentary with presidential systems as they govern 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 President is elected directly by the
The power of the Executive branch has expanded over time to become the most authoritative division of government. In contrast to the Constitution’s fundamental designer, James Madison, who predicted the Legislative branch would dominate due to it’s power in making laws and regulating taxes/spending, the executive powers have proven to be superior and ever broadening. Since the birth of the Republic, the President has sought to protect his rights and seek beyond his restriction of power. Setting the precedent as early as 1795, George Washington refused to relay documents relating to the Jay Treaty to the House of Representatives and saw his actions as a justified act of “executive prerogative.” Moreover, weaving throughout the Nineteenth century, presidents such as Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln conceived and added functions, such as the extensive use of the veto and the president’s direct and active role as Commander in Chief to their executive tool-belt.
Ghana’s government was a monarchy government with local kings that paid thanks to the Ghana’s king. Moreover, Ghana had a king to rule/control them and they were thanked from local kings. 300 CE. was the beginning of Ghana, this was also when they gained the control of salt and gold! Later on, in 300 CE, they made the discovery of iron. In 610 CE. the Muslims took over Ancient Ghana. Not long after, in 800 CE. Ghana was officially founded, but many stories/documentations say it was founded in 300 CE. Around 200 years later Ghana captured Aoudaghost and was the height of the Ghanaian
By contrast, a President is elected directly by the people and presidential elections are often divisive, creating bad blood between parties. It is not uncommon for the President to adapt his/her policy agenda to meet their personal time frame. Additionally, removing a President from office requires a lengthy process. A successor will likely have political legitimacy and may have their own agenda causing further discontinuity.
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.
Every country differs in their preference of political system to govern their countries. For democratic countries, two possible choices of governing are the presidential system and the parliamentary system. Since both the presidential and the parliamentary systems have their own strengths and weaknesses, many scholars have examined these two forms of government, and debate on which political system is more successful in governance. In this paper, I will first provide a detailed analysis of both the parliamentary and the presidential system. I will also evaluate each system’s strengths and weaknesses, addressing any differences as well as any commonalities. Finally, I will conclude by using historical examples to analyze and support the presidential system, which would be a more desirable system for a democratic government.
The articles point out the adaptability between the two systems and how they differ from each other. The presidential system is a fixed term in office that does not allow for some political adjustments to require some events. In this system, there is no democratic principle existing to solve dispute between executive-legislative branches. There is also less inclined to consensus building because compromises look negative to others. In parliamentary system, the adaptability for the system is that the cabinet crises are easily solved.
Charlick, R. (2000) "Popular participation and Local Government Reforms" Africa Notes, New York: Cornell University, (April) pp1-5
The causes of ethnic conflict cannot be generalised to fit all incidents, as the conflicts in Sri
According to Linz (1990), he called “The perils of presidentialism” focuses mainly on the general problem of presidential system rather than focusing on its specific sub-type like semi presidential systems. He argues, “The superior historical performance of parliamentary democracies is not accident” (Linz 1990:258). He also said that from the performance of both government systems one can conclude that parliamentary system of government performs better and accomplishes a stable democracy rather, presidential systems, especially in deeply divided societies. (Linz