In their argument, two–party presidential system and multiparty parliamentarianism cannot in any wise be equated with the multiparty presidentialism. They augmented that parliamentary system of government practically presents some challenges though it claims to resolve the political deadlock. It would involve ongoing desire for majority consent from the legislature, the hopes of transforming the polity or demanding for the new electoral process, and better transparency in the election. Conversely, they stressed that the multiparty presidential system has more to deliver. Besides, multipartism in conjunction with presidentialism would enhance political inclusion.
This has enormous impacts on notably the legitimacy of a regime and of the power holders in all countries. Being appointed by the people and viewed as such certainly makes actions and decisions more legitimate. This is why I will argue that election is necessary for democracy to hold, but it is far from being a sufficient condition for democratic politics. In this essay, I will start by defining democracy and base my argumentation around it. After, I will discuss the necessity of elections in a democracy and finally, I will argue that elections are not sufficient in order to hold a democracy.
Additionally, with the fusion of powers, the party that controls the legislature also directs the executive branch. “This combination of legislative and executive power in the hands of the government party is the basic feature of the Westminster model.” (Wilson 1994, p.193, as quoted in Lamprinakou 2014) With that being said, this essay will discuss and compare the strengths and weaknesses of the Westminster model, and argue the accuracy of this type of government for the present-day United Kingdom. As discussed in lecture, there are six main features of the British political system that distinguish the U... ... middle of paper ... ... advantage, that may seem disadvantageous to some, is the ability to easily get rid of the Prime Minister, as seen in Chamberlain’s and Thatcher’s reign. Chamberlain became Prime Minister in 1937 and was very popular for his aggressive actions in Munich. In 1939, Chamberlain promised that Britain would defend Poland’s independence in an attack, and therefore Britain joined the war.
The idea of an ideal democracy is not a particularly obtainable idea, considering the different in culture and history of countries this could be a dramatic change to previous authoritarian regimes. Although we can work towards this idea of an ideal democracy reaching this goal will be a much harder task. The attributes that contribute to having an ideal democracy are free and fair elections, their capability to implement policies, political participation of the masses and universal adult suffrage, and a multiple party political system. Holding free and fair elections is the first step to an ideal democracy. The concept that the people have some control over who is making decisions and effectively “ruling” over them is one that is crucial to full democratic ideologies.
The strengths of the book are its ethos or reputation of the author that establishes his credibility, informal writing style that can appeal to more people, its consideration of a number of undemocratic aspects of the Constitution that makes it open to changes, and its recognition of the limitations of the Framers, while its weaknesses are its lack of further depth of discussion on the undemocratic aspects of the Constitution and it does not provide sufficient empirical evidence on what democratic aspects of a democratic republican will work for the unique and diverse values, beliefs, and practices of Americans. When someone even thinks, moreover, asserts, that the American Constitution is flawed, it may be safe to imagine numerous Americans who would spring up in its defense, but Dahl (2001) knew how to appease them because he is not new or unknowledgeable to the topic given his education and expertise in political science. Dahl (2001) has ethos by virtue of his background and writing quality output on the field of political science. Hertzberg (2002) of The New Yorker described the merits of Dahl (2001) as an eminent political analyst. Dahl (2001) happens to be the “Sterling Professor Emeritus of Political Science” a... ... middle of paper ... ... to democracy and Constitutional concepts in the American setting.
On one hand, political constitutionalists argue that parliamentary sovereignty is the underlying principle in the British constitution as power and law making are bo... ... middle of paper ... ...pe, Lady Baroness Hale and Lord Steyn. Lord Hope notably proposed that ‘the rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimately controlling factor on which our constitution is based’ . This was concurred by Lady Baroness Hale who stated that ‘the courts will treat with particular suspicion any attempt to subvert the rule of law’ although she acknowledged, ‘the constraints upon what Parliament can do are political and diplomatic rather than constitution.’ Lord Steyn was perhaps the most candid. While he conceded that parliamentary sovereignty is the ultimate controlling factor in the British constitution, he claimed that parliamentary sovereignty is a creation of common law and exceptional situations may arise where the courts have to step in to review legislation of the Parliament, implying that even the sovereign Parliament may be subjected to the rule of law.
Debating which constitutional form of government best serves democratic nations is discussed by political scientist Juan Linz in his essay “The Perils of Presidentialism”. Linz compares parliamentary systems with presidential systems as they govern democracies. As the title of Linz’s essay implies, he sees Presidentialism as potentially dangerous. Linz points out the flaws as presidentialism as he sees them and sites rigidity of fixed terms, the zero-sum game and political legitimacy coupled with lack of incentive to form alliances as issues to support his theory that the parliamentary system is superior to presidentialism. According to Linz, term limits in presidentialism force a president to serve a country for a fixed period of time
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary Democracy is a form of government by the people; especially: rule of the majority(Webster). This is what the United States is represented as, and this is based on the United States Constitution from which the United states draws all legal powers. In Robert Dahls book How democratic Is the American Constitution? He challenges this idea by trying to appeal to his readers in a way that they may view the United States Constitution in a different light. Dahl does this by pointing out flaws that the Constitution has and, draws on facts based on the other democracies around the world that the United States is compared too.
However, there are questions to be asked of them and indeed comparisons to be made. This essay will examine the arguments set forth by Publius and Locke with a view to proving that they do indeed champion strong government and arguably exclude arbitrary governmental traits that may constrain attempts to do what is best for the individual rather than the people as a whole. In effect, the constraints they put in place in their texts established a balance of power that had its limits and weaknesses but ultimately appeared to be fair. John Locke wrote The Second Treatise of Government in 1689 and Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay (Publius) wrote The Federalist Papers in 1787 and 1788. There are common themes shared between them despite the century that passed between their respective publication dates.
Juan Linz – The Perils of Presidentialism Discussions of which constitutional form of government best serves the growing number of democratic nation’s are in constant debate all over the world. In the essay “The Perils of Presidentialism”, political scientist, Juan Linz compares the parliamentary system with presidential 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