When looking at the different political systems across the world, parliamentary and presidential systems can be seen as two eminent and highly successful democracy as used most famously by Britain the United States respectively. Due to their difference in the system of governing, the role of an Australian Prime Minister may vary from that of an American President. Thus, differentiation of the system may incur a verity of responsibility and privilege that one and another desire to hold.
First of all, the power distribution varies in these two systems. The position of president grants him/herself both the head of government, also known as chief executive and the head of state. The president is considered to be vested balanced power against that of the legislature. Head of state, often known as the chief public representative of monarchy, republic, federation, commonwealth and other forms of the state, while as a representative, sometimes can merely be seen as a figurehead, such as the Queen and Governor-General in the constitutional monarchy Australia for many times functions in a primarily ceremonial role. Although they have the authority to dissolve parliament and dismiss the government granted by Constitution covertly, the convention was that the unelected Governor General would only act on the advice of the ministers if this power is ever used, very rarely according to the history. The head of government, in another word, chief executive, in the other hand, seen as the ones who are the head of nation’s legislature and holding the actual powers on governing affairs. In the presidential government, those two roles, head of state and the head of government are overlapped and joined in a single person. While in the parliamentar...
... middle of paper ...
...
Australian Prime Minister, in some ways, has imported practices for the American president. However, the Prime Minister seems to be able to compete with president as it has increasing power in hand and ability in dealing national affair by its decisions.
Because of the independent legislature, the members of the Congress can have meaningful political career, and have real power to influence public policy which unlike that in Australian parliament, the party members need the support of the party leader if they want to influence the state.
In conclusion, there are some significant differences between presidential system and parliamentary system in areas such as the conduct of election, the party discipline and the separation of power. And in many ways American president may envy Australian Prime Minister due to the difference between their position and roles.
Australia is currently a constitutional monarchy, meaning that the Queen is our current head of state. We also have a written constitution, which limits the Queen and other authorities power. The governor general, who is appointed on the advice of the prime minister, represents the Queen.
One of the first differences of a prime minister compared to a president, are the powers that are given to each one that gives them the authority to lead. Different areas of the law and branches of government are ruled with different powers of authority for the government and state. Commonly, another way the president differs from a prime minister,
Since the dawn of civilization, states all over the globe have lived according to the systems that they themselves have deemed efficient. No two regions of the world operate in the exact same manner despite how obvious their commonalities may appear to be. However, the two global power players of Australia and the United Kingdom both have an almost limitless amount of differences between them and nothing but ancient ties holding them together, yet one thing that they both seem to share is that somewhere within their operation of their government they utilize a parliamentary system. What are the respective roles of Parliament in Australia and Britain? The analysis of these different parliamentary structures allows society as a whole to further
When comparing parliamentary and presidential systems, the authors look at the institutional constraints and the decision-making processes of both systems. Over the course of their overview on the differences between the two systems, the authors do not state which type of system is more effective. The authors first look at the institutional constraints of the two systems which, in this case, refers to the “relationship between the executive and legislative branches” (12) and how independent and or dependent they are from one another. Executives in a
The Prime Minister of Canada has an integral role within the Canadian parliament. In the political Parliamentary system of Canada, the Prime Minister wields the executive responsibility. He is accountable for an assortment of administrative, managerial, and supervisory decisions in effect across the country. The executive role is the branch of government that is generally responsible for creating laws, and enforcing the regulations to ensure these laws are observed.
The decision for Australia to adopt the Federal system was on the principle of which the State’s governments wanted to keep their power. For this reason there was the separation of powers between the newly formed Commonwealth government and the existing State governments. At a constitutional level, there are rulings in which the powers are separated, these rulings due to disputes have slightly changed since 1901. These changes all fell towards the one government, the Commonwealth (Federal) government. However this was not just a landslide event, the Constitution of Australia set up this imbalance of powers between the Commonwealth and State governments. We will explore this further in the points discussed later in this essay.
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
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.
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...
2. President plays a key role in United States. Because he is considered as head of the state. While in Canada prime minister plays crucial role for the people.
Democracy is a political system where elections are held, citizens have the right to vote and have certain civil liberties (Kesselman 691). There are many democratic states around the world with many similarities, one difference between them is usually the way the government is set up. Two large government templates are the presidential system and the parliamentary system. The United States is considered a to have a presidential system, while Britain on the other hand runs on a parliamentary system. In more recent times, these two systems have become fused to create a hybrid style called a mixed presidential-parliamentary system which can be seen in France and Russia. Each of these systems give a large amount of power to the executive. With powers such as being able to declare referendums, dissolve the legislature, executive decrees, the French President and Russian President far more powerful than executive leaders in other countries.
The other type of political system being analyzed is a parliamentary system. A parliamentary system has its executive branch in ...
In the parliamentary system the chief executive of the state (Prime Minister) is not elected directly by the people, but he is normally the leader of the majority party in the Parliament. He chooses his own Cabinet which again, normally should be out of the Parliament only.
The United States President and United Kingdom Prime Minister are arguably the two most powerful elected leader in world. But we want to know who really is the most powerful. We are going to discuss and compare their powers. So we are going to learn their similarities and differences between them. Both the United States President and United Kingdom Prime Minister occupies a unique position not only in their respective political systems but also in the world as whole.
It is well known that the British political system is one of the oldest political systems in the world. Obviously, it was formed within the time. The United Kingdom of the Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the constitutional monarchy, providing stability, continuity and national focus. The monarch is the head of state, but only Parliament has the right to create and undertake the legislation. The basis of the United Kingdom’s political system is a parliamentary democracy. Therefore, people think the role of the Queen as worthless and mainly unnecessarily demanding for funding, but is it like that?