AP Comparative Government: AP Comparative Government

depends on what the relationship is between the executive structure and legislative system. Under a presidential system the executive and legislative branches are separated so that it is easier to distribute power equally and ensure that those in power are held accountable. Although they don’t hold “checks and balances”, under a parliamentary system, the government can be more effective when they do not separate the executive and legislative branches. This allows the government to accomplish more because they can pass more legislations faster. It is more difficult to pass policies under a presidential system because, unlike in parliamentary systems, they are unable to produce comprehensive proposals in a promptly manner. Still, problems can arise in parliamentary systems. For example, there may be “immobilism” in parliamentary systems, similar to the deadlocks in presidential systems, which could cause a delay in the process of making legislations. It is also more difficult to fix problems between the legislative and executive branches in a presidential system because each side will continue to fight over the power to pass laws and adjust it in the way they want. If the legislative branches are weakened, there is more probability of presidentialism failing than parliamentarism. Therefore, implementing a parliamentary executive structure could be an effective

Australia and Indonesia political systems are instrumental in shaping the development of individual nations. These systems determine the policies that are to be followed by the government and the governed and aim to establish political stability. Despite Australia is a constitutional monarchy and Indonesia is a republic, the two country have many similarities and differences in the political system. This extended response identifies and compares the key features of government system and election between Australia and Indonesia political systems.

parliamentary government under a constitutional monarchy, meaning that parliament has a supremacy over the monarchy but the Queen still has certain powers (Jones et al., 2004). Since the 1970’s the traditional constitution has been challenged and had two major changes, which I will talk about later. The US constitution, unlike the UK constitution, is codified. It has a clear written primary source and one could say that its secondary source is the interpretation by the Supreme Court, which can change the meaning of specific phrases written in the primary source (Singh, 2003). A central principle to the constitution is that government should be limited and the powers split up.

This act threw out the colonial currency. It also made a court that was meant to prosecute smugglers and the like however it was skewed to serve British interests. The colonists responded with protest.

Britain, for instance, one of the most stable parliamentary systems within our society does present an example for a parliamentary government in many aspects. For one, their parliamentary system creates clear access points to power with in the government. There is a much smaller breakdown of the “parts” of the government: The prime minister, and his political party, elected before him. The only other significant factions would be regulatory agencies, who are under the direct control of the majority. In Britain’s case the secretary of state, i.e. foreign minister are actual legislatures and therefore are more capable of introducing and even

As the most widely adopted form of democratic government there are many strengths associated with a parliamentary government. The parliamentary system is often praised for the fast and efficient way in which it is able to pass legislation. The reason this is possible is because unlike a presidential system the legislative and executive power in a parliamentary system are merged together. Due to this fusion of power legislation does not have to undergo a lengthy process and therefore laws can be formulated and put into place much quicker(Bates, 1986: 114-5). Another advantage of a parliamentary system is that the majority of the power is not held by one individual head of state but rather is more evenly divided among a single party or coalition. One of the main benefits of this is that as there is more of a division of power a parliamentary government is less prone to authoritarianism than a presidential system. Juan Linz argues that a presidential system is more dangerous due to the fact that; “Winners and losers are sharply defined for the entire period of the presidential mandate”(Linz, 1990: 56), this sharp line between winners and losers increases tension between these two groups and allows the winner to isolate themselves from other political parties (Linz, 1990: 56). Due to this tension and isolation a presidential system is at a higher risk of turning into an authoritarian regime than a parliamentary system.

Every country differs in their preference of political system to govern their countries. For democratic countries, two possible choices of governing are the presidential system and the parliamentary system. Since both the presidential and the parliamentary systems have their own strengths and weaknesses, many scholars have examined these two forms of government, and debate on which political system is more successful in governance. In this paper, I will first provide a detailed analysis of both the parliamentary and the presidential system. I will also evaluate each system’s strengths and weaknesses, addressing any differences as well as any commonalities. Finally, I will conclude by using historical examples to analyze and support the

Key difference between presidents and prime ministers is the relationship between the branches of government (Heffernan, 2005:54) – is there a distinct separate executive branch from the legislature

Throughout history, there have been many systems of government that have been created, and have revolutionised todays modern forms of government. Democracy, Monarchy, Dictatorship, Theocracy, and Anarchy all use various, unique techniques on how to run a civilization. Each of them require different leadership traits in order for it to work properly.

      There are two main types of political systems, one being a presidential system and the other being a parliamentary system. Both of them have their own benefits as well as their own disadvantages. No political system can be perfect or can always have stability, but shown in history there are successful countries that use either one. Also there are countries that have failed with one of the two systems.

There are also differences between the Presidential and Parliamentary model. In the Presidential Model, the president is the Executive body and is separated from the Legislature. President is voted by the people and also the Legislative Branch that is composed by

Topic: A presidential democracy is more likely to produce strong, effective government than a parliamentary democracy.

According to Andrew Janos, “the price of economic progress has been political turmoil”. (Janos, pg. 21) If the Modernization Theory holds that countries tend to become more democratic the more they modernize, then political turmoil is to be expected in democracies. Certainly this can occur in both parliamentary and presidential systems: as Linz argues, the presidential system concentrates too much power on the president, resulting in “winner-take-all” politics (Linz, pg. 56) and the polarization of political parties. This is evident in the United States, where the president is elected separately and Congress is divided between the opposing Democrats and Republicans. Conversely, the parliamentary system in Britain, as well as that adapted by the former British colonies of Sri Lanka and Nigeria, has had its fair share of single-party hegemony and political abuse. (Horowitz, pg. 78) Democracy is therefore not a perfect form of government when put in practice, and much of its

The presidential government has distinctive characteristics compared to parliamentary system. According to Hargrove, “presidential government can be defined as by nature, single-person office, chosen for a fixed term by a uniquely national constituency, sharing virtually all the powers of the federal government with an equally distinct and independent congress” (Hargrove, 1984). The president, who is directly elected by public, is head of the government and also head of the state. It appears that the president has full support from public and also symbolizes the national representative and unifying figure. The “separation of power” and “check and balance” are main features in the presidential form of government. According to Abueva, “legislative power is vested in

parlance). These ministers are usually not simultaneously members of the legislature, although their appointment may require the advice and consent of the legislative branch. Because the senior officials of the executive branch are separately elected of appointed, the presidential political system is characterized by a separation of powers, wherein the executive and legislative branches are independent of one another. Presidents have greater control over their cabinet appointees who serve at the President's pleasure, and who are usually selected for reasons other than the extent of their congressional support (as in parliamentary systems). The U.S. represents the strongest form of presidentialism, in the sense that the powers of the executive and legislative branches are separate, and legislatures (national and state) often have significant powers.