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.
Power Separation
Separation of power is an important concept within presidential systems like the United States, with presidential power constricted by established levels of responsibility. According to Lijphart (1999: 125), the separation of power within presidential systems implies “not only the mutual independence of the executive and legislative branches but also the rule that the same person cannot simultaneously serve both”, which isn’t the case in parliamentary systems, where the Prime Minister does have control of both branches of government (SOURCES). This also applies to the powers of US state governments, with certain areas of policy i.e. educational standards and criminal justice (BIIP, 2004) controlled by states r...
... middle of paper ...
...aring, S. and Shugart, M. (1997) “Juan Linz, Presidentialism, and Democracy: A Critical Appraisal”, Comparative Politics, vol.29, no.4, pp. 449-471.
Pearlman, J. (2013) Julia Gillard Leadership Vote, [Online], Available: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10142754/Julia-Gillard-leadership-vote-explained.html
Sanders, D., Clarke, H., Stewart, M. and Whiteley, P. (2005) The 2005 General Election in Great Britain, [Online], Available: http://www.essex.ac.uk/bes/Papers/ec%20report%20final.pdf [Date Accessed: 25/01/2014].
Szilagyi, I. (2009) “Presidential versus Parliamentary Systems”, AARMS, vol.8, no.2, pp. 307-314.
Valdes, G., Mears, B. and Shoichet, C. (2014) Convicted Cop Killer Edgar Tamayo Arias Executed, [Online], Available: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/22/us/mexico-texas-tamayo-execution/ [Date Accessed: 25/01/2014].
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.
In Mellon’s article, several aspects are mentioned supporting the belief that the prime minister is too powerful. One significant tool the prime minister possesses is “… the power to make a multitude of senior governmental and public service appointments both at home and abroad,” (Mellon 164). Mellon goes on to state the significance the prime minister has when allowed to appoint the government’s key member...
Our Constitution establishes three branches of government and defines their very existence. The reason for the three branches is to separate the powers. The phrase “separation of powers” isn’t in the constitution, but it best explains the intention of the Constitution. It is essential that the assignment of lawmaking, enforcing and interpreting be spread out among the separated powers to ensure that all power doesn’t fall into the lap of one group, or even a power-hungry individual. The powers of which I’m speaking that were intentionally separated by way of the Constitution are the Legislative Branch, Executive Branch and finally, the Judicial Branch.
Who has the greater legitimacy to represent the people? The president or the legislatures. In comparing the Chilean 1970 Presidential Election to 1979 Spanish appointment of Adolfo Suirez as Prime Minister, Linz notes “Allende received a six-year mandate for controlling the government even with much less than a majority of the popular vote, while Suirez, with a plurality of roughly the same size, found it necessary to work with other parties to sustain a minority government”. Linz supports the fusion of the executive and legislative branches because it forces a sense of cooperation. He points out that “presidential systems may be more or less dependent on the cooperation of the legislature; the balance between executive and legislative power in such systems can thus vary considerably” Linz admits that “presidential elections do offer the indisputable advantage of allowing the people to choose their chief executive openly, directly, and for a predictable span rather than leaving that decision to the backstage maneuvering of the politicians.” but qualifies it by stating that it is only and beneficial if the majority of the people of spoken. In Scott Mainwaring and Matthew Shugart’s critical appraisal of “The Perils of Presidentialism” they offer counter arguments when they suggest that a bicameral parliament can just as easily have dual legitimacy issues as a President and legislative body. It should be recognized that Linz does not address the checks and balances that allows for a more regulated government ensuring that power is not concentrated in the hands of one group. Nor does he address that elections
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.
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.
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
Separation of powers is the separation of branches under the constitution by the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government. Federalism is a government system that includes the national government, which shares sovereign powers with fifty state governments.
Since the 1950s there has been a rise in the power of the Prime Minister, specially Crossman in 1962 and Benn, who in 1979 referred to “a system of personal rule in the very heart of our Parliamentary democracy”. As Britain has remained the “world’s most successful representative democracy”. The role of the executive has significantly increased at a great deal since the end of World War 2, however, the outward dangers of a supplementary individual hegemony attached to the Prime Minister shouldn’t be overemphasized. Although the modern examples of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair whose styles of leadership have each been labelled as presidential. In this essay I will be assessing the four main prime minister’s power and if his or her powers constrained under the British system. For instances, the power of patronage, cabinet power, the party leadership and the mass media. These are four main factors of the prime minister and its effectiveness can be argued.
Much G. L., 2004, Democratic Politics in Latin America: New Debates and Research Frontiers, Annual Reviews
The United Kingdom is formally called “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.” Government in the United Kingdom is considered to be Parliamentary. Although it is parliamentary, it is also described as being “majoritarian.” Parliament in the UK works a little different than the United States; the people of the U.S. are allowed to elect their president. In the parliamentary system the people elect who will be in the legislature, and the legislature then selects who the next prime minister will be. Then, once the prime minister is selected he choses members of the cabinet. This system creates a quick and easy political decision-making by popular majority. In this essay we will discuss the strengths and limitations the majoritarian government of the UK. One of the strengths of majoritarian government is perhaps that it is the fastest to pass or veto legislation, however there are limitations or weaknesses also like it lacks checks and balances from the House of Lords, and the disadvantage that the smaller parties have when it comes to elections, and not having a set calendar date for elections.
be necessary to take a brief look at the history of the office of the
In a constitutional monarchy, a directly or indirectly-elected prime minister will serve as the head of government and will exercise poli...
According to Linz (1990), he called “The perils of presidentialism” focuses mainly on the general problem of presidential system rather than focusing on its specific sub-type like semi presidential systems. He argues, “The superior historical performance of parliamentary democracies is not accident” (Linz 1990:258). He also said that from the performance of both government systems one can conclude that parliamentary system of government performs better and accomplishes a stable democracy rather, presidential systems, especially in deeply divided societies. (Linz
Lisa Webley and Harriet Samuels defined the separation of powers as a theory or doctrine that describes the way in which a state organises the distribution of power and function between its different parties. The separation of powers is divided into three branches which are the executive, legislative and Judiciary.