Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Presidential system vs parliamentary system debate
Parliamentary versus presidential systems
Presidential system vs parliamentary system debate
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Presidential system vs parliamentary system debate
There are different forms of government that rule in the world today. The presidential system of government and the parliamentary system of government are both very important and widely used as systems of governments. There are many differences between the presidential and parliamentary systems of government. The main difference being the person who is in power in each system. The president and the prime minister take on different roles in these. The branches within these governments are elected differently and the amount of power they have is different also. In the presidential system the president may not be easily replaced, contrary to the parliamentary system in which the prime minister can be replaced in a quicker way. Both systems have
In this system of government there is an overlap on who is part of the executive and who is part of the legislative branch. The prime minister and the members of the legislative branch hold office in both (Phillips, 2012, p.198). Contrary to the “separation of powers” that the presidential system holds, the parliamentary system holds the “fusion on powers”. This makes both branches responsible for administering the daily operations of government departments and also exercising executive powers (Phillips, 2012, p.198). This can be seen as an advantage and a disadvantage at the exact same time. It is the parliamentary systems’ most important advantage, that no branch has the power to go against the executive, but it may also be seen as a disadvantage. Because there is no “separation of powers”, the executive branch may hold too much power and the legislative branch might not have any or only a little control over it. Usually the prime minister is part of the same political party as the legislative branch since the legislature branch itself appoints him or her. It is very easy for the legislative branch to replace a prime minister. If the legislative branch votes on replacing the prime ministers then an action called a “motion of no-confidence” begins and the prime minister has to either resign or hold an election in order
Both have their advantages and disadvantages. The overall advantage of the parliamentary system is that the legislative branch almost always chooses a prime minister who is already part of their political party. This results in their views being very similar and them working together easily. In the presidential system the president and the legislative branch might have different views and might end being on different sides when it comes to many decisions. When it comes to passing laws, the parliamentary system usually has a quicker process. This is because it is easier for the legislative branch to pass legislation as it is essentially at the same power as the executive branch. This may be seen as an advantage to the legislative branch when they want to pass a new law. They do not have to wait for the approval of the prime minister, seeing as usually they have the same plans and want to pass the same laws. However, it might also be seen as a disadvantage if the law is not appealing to everyone else. Contrary to the parliamentary system, the presidential system requires the signature of the president and his or her approval of a law. The president may veto a law if they deem necessary or if they disagree with it. However, the legislative branch does have power to overrule this veto with a two-third vote thanks to the system of checks and balances. In the US the Senate also requires 60%
These three branches of government are exactly the same in present day, but how they are elected and appointed to their position is the only difference. The idea and structure of the representative government is the most evident
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...
In Canada there are three branches of government: the executive branch which enforces Canadian laws and carries out government business; the legislative branch which debates and passes laws; and the judicial branch which interprets the laws and dictates how punishment should be carried out. In parliamentary government the executive branch is drawn from the legislative branch and is responsible to it. The responsibility lies in the fact that the government must have the confidence (or majority support) of the House of Commons in order to remain in power and this confidence is assured through party discipline; in other words, the party expects their Members of Parliament (MP’s) to vote the way the party votes.
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.
The Prime Minister of Canada is given much power and much responsibility. This could potentially create a dangerous situation if the government held a majority and was able to pass any legislation, luckily this is not the case. This paper will argue that there are many limitations, which the power of the prime minister is subject too. Three of the main limitations, which the Prime Minister is affected by, are; first, federalism, second the governor general and third, the charter of rights and freedoms. I will support this argument by analyzing two different types of federalism and how they impact the power of the Prime Minister. Next I will look at three of the Governor Generals Powers and further analyze one of them. Last I will look at the impact of the charter from the larger participation the public can have in government, and how it increased the power of the courts.
Several aspects of the executive branch give the presidency political power. The president’s biggest constitutional power is the power of the veto (Romance, July 27). This is a power over Congress, allowing the president to stop an act of Congress in its tracks. Two things limit the impact of this power, however. First, the veto is simply a big “NO” aimed at Congress, making it largely a negative power as opposed to a constructive power (July 27). This means that the presidential veto, while still quite potent even by its mere threat, is fundamentally a reactive force rather than an active force. Second, the presidential veto can be overturned by two-thirds of the House of Representatives and Senate (Landy and Milkis, 289). This means that the veto doesn’t even necessarily hav...
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.
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
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.
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
The legislative Branch is a powerful part of our governmental system. One of the strengths of it is that it has powers that no other branch has. The legislative branch, including both the House of Representatives and the Senate, is given extensive powers by the Constitution. The legislative branch is the only branch that can create laws or change existing laws. In addition to creating and changing laws, the legislative branch has an array of powers such as: the power to declare war, confirm or reject many Presidential appointments, impeach a federal official, to include the president or a justice of the Supreme Court, create annual federal budgets and direct how federal monies are spent, and extensive investigative powers. Essentially, one of the legislatives branches’ greater powers to creating and changing laws do not yield there; additionally, if the President vetoes a bill, they may override his veto by passing a bill again in each chamber as long as the chambers can get at least a two-third voting in favor of the bill. An example would if the President wants to create a program and/or a system, he will have to go through Congress for approval of the
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.
The fundamental power of the prime minister is the “power of patronage”, meaning the capability to appoint and sack, encourage and relegate all ministers in the government. This reinforces the power of the prime minister in two approaches: the prime minister can ensure the appointment and promotion of loyal supporters and “especially of politicians who share his or her political or ideological preference”. This suggests that the rivals, critics or political opponents can be circumscribed from the government and put into lower positions. Also as the prime minister regulators their governmental careers, it ensures that the ministers and back benches cooperate together in order to remain loyal and supportive. As they serve under the prime ministers will, this gives the prime ministe...
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.
This fusion of power allows the people’s representatives in the legislature to directly engage the executive in debates discussion in issues that will bring positive development in the state. This is not possible in the presidential system since the legislative and the executives arms are constitutionally separated and thereby restricted to engage the legislature in a discussion in which reasons are advanced against some proposition or proposal. The outcome is that party leaders in parliamentary system are more reliable than those in presidential systems. Presidential systems have turned the aim of electoral campaign into personalities rather than platform and programs because the focus is on the candidate and not on the party in general. But parliamentary systems on the other hand focus much more relating structured they do not do anything outside the scope of the party. We can compare the quality of leadership or administration in British, Canadian prime minister to the United State president. In all the country presidential system of government are chosen because people think been a good leader is by popularity and the ability to win election not minding if the candidate is fit for the task of presidency. But in parliamentary system, the person that has high quality of leadership competent enough and trustworthy is