Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Parliamentary democracy vs presidentialism
Compare and contrast between parliamentary and presidential democracy
Comparing and contrasting between parliamentary democracy and presidential
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Parliamentary democracy vs presidentialism
The main focus area of this paper, as directed by the question, will concentrate on the advantages of Parliamentarism, but due to the ambiguous nature of the democratic process and the diverse political cleavage that can make up the electorate, arguments have raged over which democratic system is best suited for a sovereign nation to adopt (Schmitter and Lynn 1990). By definition, having an advantage puts one in a favourable or superior position over another. This, by definition, instructs this essay to espouse the benefits of Parliamentarism contrasted against Presidentialism. The paper will endeavour to explain the meaning and structure of Parliamentarism, which in turn will allow the essay to examine what advantages and disadvantages it holds juxtaposed against Presidentialism. This endeavour has echoes of being a straight forward task, but when you take into consideration the varied forms of Westminster styled parliaments fostered in sovereign countries like Canada, Australia, Germany, Ireland and New Zealand among others. The semi-Presidential system of Finland and the French fifth republic. The Presidential system of the U.S.A. and the various manifestations of the US style presidential system adopted across Latin America. Suddenly this task becomes a much greater undertaking, and would be beyond the scope of this paper to extensively examine and contrast each and every representative manifestation. So for the purpose of this essay, the arguments put forward will elucidate using the strictest understanding of what the democratic systems of Parliamentarism and Presidentialism pertain to.
As outlined, the main focus of this paper will endeavour to show the advantages of Parliamentarism pitched against Presidentialism. In orde...
... middle of paper ...
...uaranteed to create democratic stability, or even make better and more insightful decisions than their Presidential counterparts, but he does state the “vast majority of stable democracies in the world today are Parliamentary regimes” (Linz 1989, p.52). Using this hypostasis, I have constructed the essay in a way that hopefully shows the advantages of the imperfect systems’ of Parliamentarism over Presidentialism. Admittedly, mainly because of word count restrictions, the paper is not a comprehensive examination of the different democratic environments, and is very much open to debate, but by taking this approach of loosely contrasting Parliamentarism and Presidentialism, I have attempted to show the flexibility and inherent benefits of Parliamentarism. Which I feel ultimately affords a more pluralistic, policy balanced and stable approach to the democratic process.
In conclusion the power of being put into office differinates between these three documents With the power of the election of being placed into office by the people themselves, this can be seen in the Athenian constitution less but more in the roman and U.S. constitutions as these documents represent the symbolism of democracy at hand. But meanwhile their similarities can be found in the aspect of being found worth and right for the position the one running for office is seeking and that is something that can be understood by all that it’s never to be
This paper discusses about the recent case, Rowe v Electoral Commissioner [2010] 273 ALR 1 (hereafter Rowe), related with the notions of representative government and representative democracy. Through the discussion of the case, this paper also analyses its significance in Australia.
In this essay I will argue that British General Elections should be conducted using a system of Proportional Representation. First, I will argue that the system would be more democratic as every vote that is cast would be represented and this ...
“ … we… need an alternative to winner-take-all majoritarianism… with Nikolas’s help… I call [this] the ‘principle of taking turns.’ [It] does better than simple majority rule… it accommodates the values of self-government, fairness, deliberation, compromise, and consensus that lie at the heart of the democratic ideal” (para.
The book aims at introducing political philosophy. To achieve this the author Stephen Nathanson has focused on a particular issue that is relevant to everyone. He discusses the problem of developing a personal outlook toward government and political life. Instead of attempting to survey the entire field of political philosophy, or discussing in brief a large number of classical or contemporary authors, the writer focuses on one question, what’s our thought or feeling about government institutions?
As a representative of the Algo ethnic group, I want to say that our people would like the new state to introduce a parliamentary system of governence. Parliamentarism is a system of government in which the head of government is elected by and accountable to a parliament or legislature. One could rightfully ask: What is our reasoning for desiring this? We think it is justified because in presidential systems the populace at large votes for a chief executive, who is the President, in a nation-wide election. This is revenant as the Algo comprises the minority of the population of the Republic of Jarth, which consists of only 1.1 million representatives in the whole state, compared to that of 2.9 million Randies, 3.8 million Dorfas and 2.2 million Takas living in the Republic of Jarth. One can reasonably assume that the outcome will most likely be that the cumulation of the majority’s vote will hinder the representation (in numbers) of the members of the minority in office. Subsequently, the Algo will have to live under the control of a leader from another ethnic group again, which the Algo members tremble at the thought of because we are proud of their ethnicity and do not wished to be shamed for it. On the other hand, in parliamentarism, the first step is an election of members of parliament, which are the political parties. This is imperative since it will allow the Algo to be able to choose the party we really share interests with....
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.
Greater levels of congruence between government and voters results in not only a democratic government, but also reflects the idea that voting is a meaningful process driven by voters as opposed to a random unknown outcome (POLI 463, Lecture 4). Congruence affects voting patterns, as citizens will seek to feel represented by their government and will adjust their voting patterns based on this. Moreover, performance of a democracy is affected, as government is held accountable in remaining congruent with the general public.
Is the purpose of government today, similar to that of philosophers of the past, or has there been a shift in political thought? This essay will argue that according to Machiavelli’s The Prince, the purpose of government is to ensure the stability of the state as well as the preservation of the established ruler’s control, and that the best form of government should take the form of an oligarchy. In contrast, in his book, Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes argues that the purpose of government should be to preserve the peace and security of men and, that the best form of government would be an absolute monarchy which would sanction such conditions. This essay will utilize themes of glory, material advantage, peace and stability to illustrate
A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.
The ideology of parliamentary sovereignty represents a constitutional order that acknowledges the necessary power of government, while placing legal limits and conditions upon its excise due to the Rule of Law, developed by the judiciary in cases such as Pickin v British Railways Board [1974] AC 765. The Diceyan theory represents a definition of parliamentary sovereignty. A general summary recalls that,
Pier Luigi Petrillo, Democracies under Pressures. Lobbies and Parliaments in a comparative public law, Giuffrè 2011
In making this argument this essay seeks to five things. Firstly, to define democracy within the contemporary context offering the key characteristics of a modern re...
More specific arguments originate from the participatory theory of democracy and the critique of a lack of responsiveness and legitimacy of representative (party) democracy. The two sets of democratic institutions are distinguished by basic features of direct participation: (1) direct democracy focuses on specific issues, in contrast to voting on candidates and general programs for long terms of office, and (2) citizens themselves act as decision makers rather than delegating these powers. Like electoral systems, a variety of procedural forms, designs, and regulations are likely to influence processes and outcome. One must also keep in mind that direct-democratic processes cannot operate in isolation but are always linked to the structures of an overall political system that includes major representative institutions. Thus, interactions between the two types of institutions will be an important challenge for analysis. For instance, as George Tsebelis notes, referendum voters can be seen as an additional veto player. Some authors contend that direct democracy may undermine representative democracy, while others focus on the deliberative functions for a democratic public sphere and the capacity for integrating citizens in the democratic process. One can also assume that basic
For years, countries have had different legislatures bicameral and unicameral. The features of each legislatures are distinct from one another. It even accounts to various vices and virtues. Both legislatures exist in various countries in the world. The reason to which varies in each place. Legislatures are essential for a society to perform politically well. However, the political structure of every nations varies thus, there exist no simple generalization. The structural arrangements of different legislatures are distinct in relation to their number of chambers available. (Danziger, J. N. (1996))