More handpicked essays just for you.
Comparing a presidential system to a parliamentary system
Comparing a presidential system to a parliamentary system
Comparing a presidential system to a parliamentary system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Saman Alikhan
Introduction to Politics
Final
1. Explain Parliamentary, Presidential, and Semi-Presidential systems. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each system for the society. Give an example for each type.
Democracies are often classified according to the form of government that they have, which are Parliamentary, Presidential, and Semi-Presidential systems. In Presidential systems there is a division of powers, such as Judicial, Legislative, and Executive. These three powers or branches are dependent on each other. The President in a Presidential system is the Head of State and also the Head of Government. 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. An example of a Presidential system is the United States along with most of Latin America, many African countries, and some Asian countries.
In a Parliamentary system there is a power concentration instead of division of powers. The Legislature is the greatest power, the government and the executive branch is dependent on Parliament. In contrast to Presidential systems, parliamentary and semi-presidential democracies have Legislative responsibility. Legi...
... middle of paper ...
...control of government separately or in union. A multi-party system prevents the leadership of a single party from controlling a single legislative chamber without challenge. Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Finland, France, Germany, India, Israel, Indonesia, Japan, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Taiwan, Spain and Sweden are examples of nations that have used a multi-party system effectively in their democracies. An advantage of a multi-party system is that voters have a wider choice of candidates and ideas while a disadvantage is that a multi-party system nation is usually unstable. This is because so many parties have different interests that they are competing for. Another disadvantage is that it can encourage the development of political parties based on clan, ethnicity or region, which can favor one area of people but not the other.
“Incumbency is the time during which a person holds a particular office or position.” (Incumbency) An incumbent candidate is a candidate who is returning to a position or office. The president can serve only two four year terms. Senators and legislators can serve an unlimited amount of six year terms. Since George Washington was president, presidents usually served two terms. However, Franklin D. Roosevelt served four terms. This resulted in the 22nd amendment limiting the amount of terms to two. The 22nd amendment was passed by congress on March, 21st 1947 and ratified by the states in February 27th, 1951.
Canada’s friendly neighbor to the South, the US, has an electoral system that is composed of 3 separate elections, one of them deciding the head of state. The president elected by the people and he or she is the determining person of the country’s political system. In the US runs like a majority system” In Canada, however, elections are held slightly differently. Citizens vote for a Member of Parliament in a 308-seat house and candidates win not by a majority, unlike in the US, but by a plurality. This means that a candidate can actually win by simply having more votes than the other candidates. This method of representative democracy, in general, does not cause too much controversy in a global scope but has caused controversy in a Canadian scope. With many critics of the Canadian election system calling it archaic and non-modern, the idea of reforming the election system has been in discussion numerous times. In 2004 by the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, created by the government of British Columbia, brought into question the current first past the post system. In an alternative state at which the Canadian election system is changed, a different set of questions is brought to the table. How can changes to the electoral system affect how the House of Commons is run and its respective procedures? In this essay, I will be discussing the possible effects of changing the Canadian electoral system on the House of Commons.
The Constitution lays out power sharing amongst the President and Congress. However the Constitution is not always clearly defined which leaves questions to how the laws should be interpreted and decisions implemented. There are three major models of presidential power within foreign policy; the first being the presidential model in which decisions abroad are made by the president and his or her top aides and advisors. This model is accepted amongst many because during times of urgency and crisis the president must make quick decisions. The president unlike congress is provided various sources of intelligence information, which is a benefit in analyzing situations globally and making sound decisions.
The authors describe some of the advantages of a MMP system: “Mixed electoral systems provide fairly proportional outcomes, maintain the geographic link between constituents and members, provide for greater choice, and allow the opportunity for smaller parties to represented in Parliament” (p. 11). This system works better than the current FPTP or plurality system, because it allows citizen’s a second opportunity to have a voice. This is important because it would allow our minority groups to have a greater political influence. As mentioned earlier, in the current system all votes for candidates who lost, were insignificant to the election outcome. The authors explain: “Only those votes that go to the eventual winner count towards electing a representative, which may discourage people from voting or promote disaffection with the system” (p. 3). Alternatively, the MMP system allows citizen’s a second opportunity to elect party members in order to proportionally represent the popular
Contrary to popular belief, a minority government does not necessarily hinder a governing party. When practiced correctly, a minority government can be an improvement on single-party majority. Instead of one party controlling government, minority governments allow for multi-party governance, which promotes compromise between political parties. On the whole, minority government decreases stability and requires continuous cooperation with opposition parties. Although faced with many challenges, there are several beneficial aspects to a minority government. This paper will argue that a minority government does not hinder a governing party, and in fact can be beneficial in numerous ways. Most importantly a minority government allows the Prime Minister to maintain a range of important resources which allow for an effective government, minority governments deliver a more open and inclusive decision making process, and a minority government guarantees the confidence of the House for a certain amount of time.
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.
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
On the other hand, the democracy powers are divided into three independent branches of government; executive, legislative, and judicial. The leaders of the executive and legislative branches, the president, vice president and Senate, are decided by direct vote of the electorate. The judges in the judicial branch are sele...
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.
Within parliamentary systems, the government i.e. the legislature consist of the political party with the most popularly elected Members of Parliament (MPs) in the main legislative parliament e.g. the House of Commons in the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister is appointed by the party to lead as the executive decision-maker, and the legislature work to support and carry out their will (Fish, 2006). In presidential systems, the President is directly elected with the support of their political party, with the legislative being separately elected and, in the case of the United States, being made up of representatives from different states (BIIP, 2004). This essay will provide examples to suggest that Presidents are generally more powerful than Prime Ministers. As two of the oldest forms of parliamentary and presidential governments (Mainwaring and Shugart, 1997), the United Kingdom and the United States will be the main focus of this essay, but other parliamentary and presidential countries will be mentioned.
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
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)
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.
Within the constitution of a nation, powers are delegated to certain institutions of that nation?s government. Although in many cases similar, nations can vary drastically when defining the organizational structure from which they operate. Some democratic constitutions delegate more power to the executive branch while in other nations more power is given to the legislature. This point can be illustrated when the same branch of a nation?s government is compared with that of another. An example of differing executive powers can be viewed between the Russian Federation and Japan.
According to all three professors Seymour Martin Lipset, Juan Linz, Donald Horowitz, they are strongly suggesting their main politically argument based on the concept of presidential and parliamentary system. The stability of presidential system is that two-candidate races in multiparty systems produce coalitions including extremist parties. The balance between branches varies and with fixed term in office comes the risk of ‘vouloir conclure’. The parliamentary system’s stability describes that it has superior historical performance to presidential system. This is especially in societies with political cleavages-multiple parties. The continuity of this party is power and there is duration of coalition.