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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
chance to decide on whom they want to lead them into the kind of peace
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...
Firstly there is the presidential system. There are many characteristics to a presidential system. The first main part of a presidential system is how the executive is elected. The executive is a president who is elected to a fixed term. Also a president is not only head of state, but is head of government. The president is the sole executive of the government. Even though there is a cabinet in a presidential system it does not have the power it does in a parliamentary system. The cabinet is chosen by the president instead of chosen by the parliament. A president has to follow a constitution rather than following history. The president actually has a large part in the government’s decisions. A big advantage to political scientists of the presidential system is that there is a separation of powers. The legislative branch being separate from the executive branch lets one another keep checks and balances on each other. This assures that no one branch will take over or attempt to take over the government. Another advantage of a presidential system is that the population elects the chief executive and the legislative branch. By winning a popular vote shows that most of a country is backing the executive which does not seem to cause revolution. The president can not dissolve an assembly as one can in a parliamentary system. Also in a presidential system there is the judicial branch, which is the court system. The judicial branch is important because it helps uphold the constitution. One of the last advantages of a presidential system is that there is more stability because a president is elected to a fixed term, where as in a parliamentary system a prime minister can be ousted at any time. A presidential system is not perfect, but it has it’s high and low points.
Past forms of representative government have become extinct or severely troubled because of numerous weaknesses. The first problem of representative government that the cabinet system seeks to reconcile is the lack of cooperation between executive powers and legislative powers. This can happen when different parties control each branch of the government. This paralysis of government is seen as a danger to the cabinet system. Lack of cooperation can also occur because people of a country look to the executive as the leader, but he can often not have any power as a result of lack of cooperation from the legislative powers. Overall, there is a lingering inclination in representative government for the powers to become dissonant, thus rendering government unable to take any action. The cabinet system sees this gridlock as an entirely avoidable evil.
The last criterion on the differences between these two systems is the checks and balances between the two systems. The presidential system winner-takes-all politics makes politics a zero-sum game where the fixed mandate identifies losers and winners for the entire period. There is no moderating power involved and the presidents avoid coalitions with opponents because it could weaken them. The president has unlimited independent power, which they can appeal directly to the people and might think he/she represents the society as a whole even if he/she can be elected by a minority of people, which is the heavy reliance on personal qualities.
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