[ Writer Name ]
[ Institute Name ]
Parliamentary and Presidential Democratic System
There has been much argument amongst political academics concerning the virtues and failures of both parliamentary and presidential systems. While all systems of governance vary from country to country, parliamentary systems can broadly be defined as where the executive, in the style of a prime minister and his cabinet are made from the selected government . In presidential systems however the executive (president) is chosen in a different style from the elected representatives and members of the executive cabinet are appointed from outside any of the elected legislatures. Presidents are also forced to serve a fixed term in office, unlike a legislative cabinet, which has an ambiguous duration.
TActually, the general history of America and UK proposes reasons to define the important variations between the governments of every respective country. In the wake of the American Revolution, the citizens of America refused the institutions and forms, most particularly Parliament and a monarchy, of British government with sovereignty of UK . Possessing a democratic presidential government, America has two separately chosen agencies of government. The legislative and executive branches of America, the Congress and President, in
¹Dahl, Robert A. (1998). On Democracy. New Haven and London: Yale UP. Chapters 13 "Why Market–Capitalism Favors Democracy," and Chapter 14 "Why Market-Capitalism Harms Democracy," pp. 166–179
²Goodwin, B. (2004), Using Political Ideas Chapter 14 – 'Freedoms and Rights', 55-58
that order, both derive their authority from the citizens, even as in UK only the parliamentary branch, Parliament, derives its authority from the citizens, as the executive is selected through Members of Parliament, therefore efficiently joining both branches within a single establishment.
The Presidential system in America and the Parliamentary system in UK both have histories marked through a lack of hopeless breakdown, yet neither system can be supposed really excellent. As a result, the researchers cannot define that system is excellent; rather, they should identify that faults and merits are there in both systems . The Parliamentary system leans to legislate ably, while a presidential system leans toward congestion. The Parliamentary system leans to support Prime Ministers who have much knowledge, as the Presidential system supports Presidents who are receptive to the common determination of the citizens.
Parliamentary System of the Government
SParliamentary system is well–known through the executive branch of government being reliant on the indirect or direct assistance of the parliament normally demonstrated through a vote of assurance. A parliament is a law–making institution. The name is copied from the parliament of France, the action of parler (to speak) in parliament is a talk, a discussion, therefore a meeting where individuals define issues of legislative government. The power is vested in an assembly and no clear cut is there in separation of authorities between the legislative and executive branches, guiding to a shortage of the checks and balances discovered in a presidential republic. In a system of parliament, individuals vote the members of the parliament and from the parliament, members will vote for their prime minister and the vote of no confidence can be performed through the members of the parliament if they considered that the
³ Dahl, Robert A. (1998). On Democracy. New Haven and London: Yale UP. Chapters 13 "Why Market–Capitalism Favors Democracy," and Chapter 14 "Why Market–Capitalism Harms Democracy," pp. 166–179
prime minister is not able adequate to escort. Different advantages are there in a parliamentary system. First is that it is quicker and easier to pass act within a parliamentary system. This is because the executive branch is reliant upon the indirect or direct assistance of the legislative branch and generally contains members of the law–making. Different types of parliamentary system are there like the UK Parliament which is normally presented to as the "Mother of Parliaments". It is from UK and it is the example form of other parliamentary system.
Parliamentary system is a very common, effective and broadly adopted administration, and it seems suitable to cite to British Parliamentary practice especially due to it is the English system which has given a great structure for several other nations. United Kingdom is considered as the country of origin about the parliamentary executive. The system of parliament is differentiated by the government's head being reliant on the support of direct or indirect by the parliament, frequently showed by the confidence vote. Therefore, there is no precise legal division of authorities between the executive government branches and legislative. This system generally has an obvious difference between the head of government and state's head.
The system of parliamentary does not indicate that a nation is controlled by various alliance political groups. These coalitions are generally the creation of a system of vote called proportional representation. The executive is in general an assembly, and this assembly is led through a prime minister (PM) who is viewed as the government's head. The PM and other different ministers classically have their background in the assembly and can remain parts thence as functioning in assembly . The head of the ruler party in assembly is frequently selected as the prime minister.
4 Hadenius, A (1997). Democracy's victory and crisis, Cambridge: CUP, 63–67
UK has selected this effective system in inclination to the system of presidential, which it alarmed might become authoritarian; yet, their collapse and break to function the system of cabinet efficiently has in several examples guided, exactly to authoritarianism. In this form of parliamentary system, the head of state is mainly an official position, regularly a president or king, keeping and holding the responsibilities that are not politically dissentious, like appointment of civil service.
The parliament is trying to make sure ever–growing positions of answerability and responsibility of the running government, by a well–developed elaborate working group system. Under the lead of parliament the legislatures of parliament have approved legislation to safe and sound for their people, all people equally sufficient means of living and employment . The parliamentary system is directly answerable to the entire members of assembly, is not obliquely answerable to the body of voters. The whole parliamentary government is not chosen through the electors but is selected indirectly among the assembly members.
While the presidential government system, also called executive system, and is distinguished trough a particular single person who controls the system of government through the determination of the people. America is the best example of presidential system. In this system, the president directs the administrative issues, and generally supervises foreign issues. Unlike a dictator, the president does not have authoritative controls but is subject to the nation's
5James L. Hyland. (1995). Democratic theory: the philosophical foundations, Publisher Manchester University Press ND, 78–84
laws. The complete executive authority is vested in the house of president and all the actions of government are his duty . This system facilitates for a Chief Executive who is came for a specific period, who holds the large mandate of public by the election. The official powers and authorities of president are explained in a constitution as document. Due to the president is the state's chief with the political head of the government, his status and power are doubly increased.
The Presidential pattern of government has its origin in America and is now confined to certain countries. There were two factors, which influenced the framers of the American constitution against the Cabinet form of government . In the first place, Montesquieu's theory of the separation of powers had a great appeal for the Americans. Secondly, they knew that Cabinet government could function only when the life of the nation was divided into distinct political parties, each with its separate programme and platform . Political parties, the framers of the Constitution believed, weakened national solidarity by creating sharp cleavages and the need of the time then were unity out of the diversity of the new nation. They accordingly created an executive department independent of and coordinate with the legislative department; an "energetic yet dignified" executive capable of enforcing national laws firmly and one which should lend a note of stability to the new government.
The Presidency of the United States is one of the greatest political offices in the world. Its occupant has become– with the exception of the Central European dictators –the most powerful head of government known to our day . He is absolutely free with respect to the exercise of his powers and tenure of office, except that all appointments made and treaties concluded by him are
6 Hadenius, A (1997). Democracy's victory and crisis, Cambridge: CUP, 63–67
7 Muschamp, D. (ed.), Political thinkers (1986) ch 9 – 'Rousseau and the General Will', 41–43
8 Goodwin, B. (2004), Using Political Ideas Chapter 14 – 'Freedoms and Rights', 55–58
9 James L. Hyland. (1995). Democratic theory: the philosophical foundations, Publisher Manchester University Press ND, 78–84
ratified by the Senate. As his term of office goes by calendar, his responsibility to the electorate is unenforceable. He can only be impeached by the Senate cannot carry a greater penalty than exclusion from office and ineligibility to enjoy and hold any trust, office of honour, or profit in America.
In the exercise of his executive duties, the president is assisted by his Secretaries who are heads of different departments. The Secretaries of the President are merely his personal assistants. They are appointed by him and are responsible to him. None of them is a member of the congress nor is he responsible to it. Though popular usage collectively gives to these departmental heads the name of 'Cabinet', yet it is a misnomer to designate them as such. The President cannot shift his responsibility to this body of any officer of it. He cannot make them individually or collectively responsible to the legislature or the country for its policies and actions of federal government over which he presides . They are responsible to him alone.
The executive in the United States has no initiative in legislation, except that the President may send messages from time to time to congress, recommending the enactment of particular laws . It is true that Presidential messages are favourably received by Congress and greatly influence legislation, yet the executive in America lacks all initiative and guidance, which is so conspicuous a feature of the Parliamentary government. Nor has the President the right to summon and dissolve Congress. Congress in the United States assembles ipso facto and its duration is fixed. No doubt, the President can veto laws passed by Congress, but it is only a suspensive veto. He may refuse assent to a bill passed by Congress within ten days after the bill
10David, M. Estlund. (2002). Democracy, Volume 4 of Blackwell readings in philosophy, Publisher Wiley–Blackwell, 145–154
11David, M. Estlund. (2002). Democracy, Volume 4 of Blackwell readings in philosophy, Publisher Wiley–Blackwell, 145–154
has been submitted to him. If the bill so vetoed is again passed through a two–thirds majority of every House, the President has no option, but to give his assent to it and promulgate it forthwith.
President is supported by the members of Cabinet, an unofficial group devoid of legal sanction. Their staffs are decided through the President and implement these authorities as he selects to vest in it. It perhaps broke up when the President wants". Unlike the parliamentary system of government the president is not accountable to the parliament, but he responsible to constitution of the state. It is the legislative body (assembly) which keeps the president eventually accountable to the constitution of state through the method of impeachment. Although president cannot be reliant on the members of the assembly for continued existence or political endurance but he is reliant on its behaviour and goodwill, for the continuance of strategies and policies.
Demerits of Presidential System
The presidential suffer from some weaknesses which are inherent in its strength and constitution. The system is based upon the separation of authorities between executive and parliament as independent and co–ordinate branches of government, and concentration of executive power on the hands of the president .This however results in frictions and frustrations for the government and the congressmen .Separation of power makes for inadequate co–ordination between the legislature and the executive. There is hardly any constant interaction between the legislature and executive, and particularly no feed back as one find in the parliamentary form.
The executive is not accountable to the parliament and the legislature is not responsive or easily amenable to the executive leadership. Separation of power with checks and balances inevitably involves 'mistrust' and the operation of 'checks' by the executive and by the legislature leads to conflict between the two. It results in frustrations all around and important socio–economic or political issues remain untackled. The political parties have been generally found ineffective in creating and maintaining bridges between people, the elected executive and the elected representatives.
The presidential system further suffers from lack of co–ordination and co–operation between the members of the presidential cabinet . They are not merely designated as Secretaries but they also work as secretaries of departments. There is no sense of collective responsibility and little or practically no team spirit. Often they work at cross purposes as they work independently of one another .They are more or less a bunch of talented people or experts brought in to the government by the president and may not share even a common political outlook ,much less a common ideology.
Advantages of Parliamentary System
Generally, the majority of the world's "established" democracies apply parliamentary systems. Parliamentary system has confirmed most excellent in nations having improved two–party system. Parliamentary system of the government has placed additional concentration on the
12Muschamp, D. (ed.), Political thinkers (1986) ch 9 – 'Rousseau and the General Will', 41–43
authority of Parliament13 . The important concentration is on the centre of the authority. Parliament becomes the major concentration and the institution Prime Minister has been getting additional significance. In Parliamentary System, Cabinets are normally made from members of the chosen representatives; parliamentary government allows the inclusion of all political aspects symbolized in the parliament comprising minorities in the executive. Cabinet containing an alliance of different parties are a common aspect of different parliamentary democracies. In different government the parliamentary system can modify on the floor of the parliament without resource to a general election, supporters of Parliamentarism point to its capacity and flexibility to apply to modifying situations as a powerful advantage. Through making the executive reliant, at least in assumption upon the trust of the legislature parliamentary system are defined to promote greater responsibility on the part of the government of the day towards the representative of citizens . Supporters defines that this supposes that there is not only important public power over the policy–making method, but also important transparency in the system decisions are prepared.
By contrast, in a parliamentary system, the legislature keeps supreme authority. The prime minister is selected through members of the legislature (Parliament) from among their individual number and in exercise is the leader of the majority party in the parliament. The members of cabinet should also belong to the parliament, where they are subject to the equal
13 Janet, Coleman. (2000). A history of political thought: from ancient Greece to early Christianity, Volume 1 of A History of Political Thought, Publisher Wiley–Blackwell, 94–99
14Muschamp, D. (ed.), Political thinkers (1986) ch 9 – 'Rousseau and the General Will', 41–43
style of questioning that the prime minister practises. If the prime minister loses the support of the majority in the parliament on an important vote, he or she should resign, and elections are called instantly. Therefore, as in America, elections are held at fixed times, in UK and other parliamentary nations; they can happen at any period, the only restriction being (in UK) that they should be assumed as a minimum once every five years. Finally, the governments of UK and America have different variations; they are, at the core, presents leadership and assistance to their countries. Though, America is the only established example of a presidential system, the educational discussions between parliamentary and presidential systems have not reached consent. As neither presidential nor parliamentary systems can be held up as an important common system of governance it appears apparent that in developing democracies presidential systems are a problem. Parliamentary systems emerge to be additional constant than presidential systems.
Dahl, Robert A. (1998). On Democracy. New Haven and London: Yale UP. Chapters 13 "Why Market-Capitalism Favors Democracy," and Chapter 14 "Why Market–Capitalism Harms Democracy," pp. 166–179
David, M. Estlund. (2002). Democracy, Volume 4 of Blackwell readings in philosophy, Publisher Wiley–Blackwell, 145–154
Goodwin, B. (2004), Using Political Ideas Chapter 14 – 'Freedoms and Rights', 55–58
Hadenius, A (1997). Democracy's victory and crisis, Cambridge: CUP, 63–67
James L. Hyland. (1995). Democratic theory: the philosophical foundations, Publisher Manchester University Press ND, 78–84
Janet, Coleman. (2000). A history of political thought: from ancient Greece to early Christianity, Volume 1 of A History of Political Thought, Publisher Wiley–Blackwell, 94–99
Muschamp, D. (ed.), Political thinkers (1986) ch 9 – 'Rousseau and the General Will', 41–43