Which system of government is more exceptional, a presidential system of government or a parliamentary system of government? This highly debated question is a rather complex question. Both systems of government have its benefits, but one in particular must be more exceptional as analyzed throughout history. A presidential system of government is best analyzed through the United States' constitutional republic. Whereas, a parliamentary system of government is best analyzed through the United Kingdom's constitutional monarchy. Although, both systems of government fit under the category of democracy, they are quite distinctive in many aspects. Ranging from how their executive official is elected to how their legislature is ran. These democratic Where a parliamentarism rises above presidentialism in the aspects of its government and the evidence shown to support that parliamentary systems of government are more exceptional. Such as research done that proves parliamentary systems of government survive longer and are more efficient compared to its opposition. The benefits of parliamentary systems of government are those in which coalitions can be formed to ensure compromise and cooperation between the fused branches of government; as in the United Kingdom, and where minority parties are able to participate in the political Presidentialism can be influenced by a majority in the legislative body, but there is nothing to guarantee that this majority is likely or will happen (J. Cheibub 1). Meaning that, as in the United States for example, when a Democratic or Republican President is elected to office, there is no guarantee that the legislature will also reflect the party of the elected President. As in a parliamentary system of government, the branches of the executive and legislature are fused and coalitions between parties are possible. Further, when agreement between the legislature and the executive is not reached then gridlock/deadlock is caused that leads to conflict in government (J. Cheibub 1). In other words, there is a government shutdown because no compromise is reached. Making it hard to form coalitions. Coalitions under presidentialism are often very rare due to the fact that there is no incentive to do so (J. Cheibub 1). Lastly, the government under presidential systems are decentralized, the President directly responds to proposals in the legislative branch that influences the government's ability to create policy (J. Cheibub 1). There is very little cooperation in a presidential system compared to a parliamentary one. Government shutdowns are more likely to occur. This separate government like in the United States
As the President of the United States, a president have powers that other members of the government do not. Presidential power can be defined in numerous ways. Political scientists Richard Neustadt and William Howell give different views on what is presidential power. These polarized views of presidential powers can be used to compare and contrast the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
Presidential power has become a hot topic in the media the in recent years. There has been extensive debate about what a president should be able to do, especially without the involvement of Congress and the American people. While this debate has become more publicized since the Bush administration, similar issues of presidential power date back to Truman and the Korean War. As with much of the structure of the U.S. government, the powers of the president are constantly evolving with the times and the executives.
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.
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.
Richard E. Neustadt, the author of Presidential Power, addresses the politics of leadership and how the citizens of the United States rate the performance of the president's term. We measure his leadership by saying that he is either "weak or "strong" and Neustadt argues that we have the right to do so, because his office has become the focal point of politics and policy in our political system.
The President of the United States is considered to be the most powerful person in the world. However, the President is not given the full power, as we think they are given. The President’s legislative powers are defined by a checks and balances system among the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch of the American Government. What are the President’s legislative powers? The two main legislative powers the President has is to pass or sign a bill and to veto a bill. However, even if the President vetoes a bill, Congress can still override that veto by a two-thirds vote from both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The system of government we have today was starting to developed centuries ago by the Athenians and Romans. Both governments were established with the intent to give power to the people, even though it did not always play out that way in society. The Athenian democracy and the Roman republic were two very different governments in practice, but also maintained similar characteristics in both systems of government.
Presidential power can be viewed in terms of Domestic and Foreign affairs. This chapter discusses how the presiden’ts normal problem with domestic policy is to get congressional support for the programs he prefers, while in foreign affairs he can almost always get support for policies that he believes will protect the nation. The president soon discovers that he has more policy preference in domestic matters than in foreign policy.
While relationship between the legislative, executive and judiciary largely remained the same, the public perception of President’s place in system has changed (Jeffrey Tulis, 1990). In the twentieth century, a strong executive emerged and was institutionalized in American national politics. Even though the framers anticipated that Congress would be the predominant branch of government, contemporary presidents wield formidable formal and informal resources of governance. As a result, the public expectations of presidents have grown and created a gap between expectations and formal powers. In an attempt to explain presidential power and its limits, four major often conflicting theories of presidential power has emerged in the last four decades.
The two countries I have chosen to compare are China and Canada. Their systems of government are very different and have different powers and rolls in their country. Canada has a system of government very similar to our own. While china's government appears to be similar as well, but it is quite different. Canada's government democratic and is parliamentary in form but, very much like our own. Like all large governments it is representative democracy.
There are two main types of political systems, one being a presidential system and the other being a parliamentary system. Both of them have their own benefits as well as their own disadvantages. No political system can be perfect or can always have stability, but shown in history there are successful countries that use either one. Also there are countries that have failed with one of the two systems.
Another huge weakness of the president is that a president’s party often does not have a congressional majority. A prime minister’s party always has a majority in parliament. Does this really mean anything? Yes it does, it creates a divided government that creates huge conflict and disagreement. Aga...
chance to decide on whom they want to lead them into the kind of peace
Smaller nations and most parliaments follow unicameralism which consists of a single chamber. For example, New Zealand, Nordic countries such as Denmark, Iceland and Finland are unicamerals as well. [Arter 1984, 16-22 and Damgard 1992 ](Patterson, S. C., & Mughan, A. (1999) 3). This is most likely due to the fact that balance of political conflict is prevalent in smaller countries. Thus, it’s relatively more efficient to solve political issues thereby choosing unicameralism. (Mahler, Gregory S. 2008) Examples of unicameralism can be found in China, South Korea, Greece, Israel, Kenya and New Zealand. (Danziger, J. N. (1996)) (163)
The American political system is representative democracy. There are three branches in the federal government under the Constitution. The legislative power is assigned in the Congress and made up of two houses: the Senate and the House of Representatives. The most powerful in Congress is made laws and controlled finances of the U.S. The President is head of state, chief executive, enforces federal laws, control foreign policy. He serves as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, and he has power make treaties with Senate approval. Back to nineteenth century, the President’s power was weak. The Presidency office had a little bit international ties, and they didn’t have any standing in army. Most of the power in the hands of Congress. Without the power in hands, Washington and Thomas Jefferson served with some unwillingness. Woodrow Wilson insinuated that the U.S. government is a “congressional government”. However, nowadays the President’s power is really strong. For example, the President has right to launch a nuclear attack. The Presidency office has the most power, especially when it under George Bush. Some scholars and commentators called that “imperial presidency” in the U.S. political system nowadays. Both