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 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.
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.
There are two key political systems; one is a presidential system, and the other is a parliamentary system. Both of them have their benefits, as well as disadvantages. No political system is flawless or has continuous stability, but history shows there are successful countries that use either type of system. Firstly, there is the presidential system, which has many characteristics. In a presidential system, there is a president, who is elected to a fixed term.
This can be seen as an advantage and a disadvantage at the exact same time. It is the parliamentary systems’ most important advantage, that no branch has the power to go against the executive, but it may also be seen as a disadvantage. Because there is no “separation of powers”, the executive branch may hold too much power and the legislative branch might not have any or only a little control over it. Usually the prime minister is part of the same political party as the legislative branch since the legislature branch itself appoints him or her. It is very easy for the legislative branch to replace a prime minister.
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.
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.
This leads to more moderate policies and a protection of minority rights. Problems in elections such as fraud and recounts, are very disruptive in systems such as popular vote, but are minimized in the Electoral College system because these problems are limited to individual states allowing for a national review of such localized problems. Finally, the Electoral College incentivizes policy makers and parties to continually try to win in states that have opposed them in recent elections, ensuring long term policy that addresses needs of the populous quickly. Overall, the Electoral College’s benefits make it the superior system to elect the President, and for that reason it should not be changed. Smaller and particularly rural states are protected by the Electoral College.
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.
The President was elected to run the country and therefore, has the most power of any individual. However, he cannot make a majority of the decisions alone and must make sure he keeps the approval of others in order to keep his job. The Constitution struck a fairly proper balance between empowering and limiting power of the President of the United States, but limited the power more so than empowering. Although the Constitution claimed the President as the leader of the Unites States, he is not able to single-handedly make decisions that affect our country. He is a large influence in a majority of the decisions in the government of the United States.