Advantages and Disadvantages of the Parliamentary System.

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

Under a minority government, no party has ultimate control of making policies, it instead rules on consensus with the other parties, conversely, in a majority government, a single-party dominates the legislative process. Though complex agreements between opposition parties, the governing party can maintain confidence. For example, countries including Canada use contract parliamentarism, where opposition parties agree to support the government in return for policy on other concessions (Akash et al., 2010, p. 216). While this promotes collective responsibility, parties are still able to decide their own position on most matters. Therefore, parties collaborate to protect minority agreements that “often survive a full parliamentary term” (Akash et al., p. 216). This can result in motions being passed that cover a broad variety of different topics that ultimately can address issues that all parties see lacking in

After reading about Britain’s parliamentary system, as well having a familiarity with the United States presidential system, the French semi-presidential system is more effective than the United State’s system, and I would prefer this system. The semi-presidential system is a bit more complicated than every other system I have learned about. The French system uses a mixture of the premier as well as the president. Under the president is the cabinet and ministries. The president serves as a guide for the nations versus a supreme leader (Roskin 87-8). I would prefer this system to the United States system. This is because of the advantages of the semi-presidential system. Some of the advantages include the fact that the president and the parliament do not serve the same amount of time on their terms. If there are people serving on each side who are not serving to the best of their ability, they can be taken out of power. It would not be at the same time, which is an advantage because the ideas of the new person serving could work with the ideas of the person serving along with them. This way, a whole fresh set of new ideas does not come in at one time. The president currently can serve two consecutive five-year terms, while the prime minister has no outlined term limits. For the prime minister to stay in power they must maintain the support of the National Assembly. (Roskin 80-82). There are new ideas flowing in either every five years or every ten. This is just one advantage to this system. Another advantage to the semi-presidential system is the multitude of ideas that are able to come through. There are so many people who are able to contribute to the semi-presidential system, that every voter’s idea should be represented. On the other hand, a disadvantage to the semi-presidential system is the fact that there are multiple representatives. The multitude of representatives can have too many ideas, and it can be hard to get things accomplished when all of their ideas are pinned against each other. Overall, I would prefer this method of governance because despite the multitude of ideas, more is able to get accomplished.

Even though the Proportional Representation system sounds like it could be a good thing for the United States, I think that the system we use now works best for our country. I think we should stick to what we have been doing for all these years. No system is ever going to be perfect but since we are familiar to how our system works, we should just keep it. I feel as though adding more parties would just be too much and get a little out of hand. With the Proportional Representation system I see the votes getting split up between too many parties, therefore there will not be one candidate that is over powering the rest.

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

A parliamentary government is a democratic form of government which operates on a party system. It is the most popular and widely adopted form of democracy. A state that operates on a parliamentary system is run by two executives, firstly the head of state who is either a monarch or president who then appoints a prime minister as the head of government. A parliament can be run by either a single majority political party or as a coalition government in which more than one party collaborate to form the government. In this essay I will be assessing the key strengths and weaknesses associated with a parliamentary government. In doing so I will conclude that whilst a parliamentary government has weaknesses its strengths outweigh these and therefore it is the superior form of democratic government.

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

PM doesn’t need legislative approval of Cabinet choices, as long as they are MPs; president needs Senate approval. Choice wise the president has more liberty in that he can choose any he please, not only does the PM have to choose an MP, they are also dependent on party pressures (a-c Heffernan, 2005:65).

The results of recent elections in Britain raised many significant questions about current political situation in the country, particularly concerning electoral system. Therefore the problem of “crisis” in democracy of Britain was the subject of wide speculation among analysts and political scientists over last years. In addition it is widely recognized that the traditional electoral system in the UK-first past the post- is the main cause of that crisis and should be replaced as part of a plan to reconstitute the democratic culture (Kelly 2008). By longstanding critics of the system, opponents advocate the use of proportional representation (PR) for selecting MPs. Due to this problem it is going to be a referendum on changing the electoral

      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.

However, seeing as this party would seeem intitially to be the ideal voting system, there are strong disadvantages which limit its potential. Perhaps the most obvious one is that it fails to provide a majority very often. For example, when used for the London Assembly in 2012, Labour gained 12 seats, the most for a single party, and the Conservatives gained 9, however Labour were still not able to gain a majority of seats as the Green Party and Liberal Democrats won 2 each, showing that if this was used for the general elections, we would end up with another coalition.

Parliamentary and Presidential democracies are forms of government that similar in some respects and differ in others. The Parliamentary system like the Presidential is divided into three separate arms of Government, the Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary. Both democracies have a bicameral legislature, often referred to as the House of Representative and the Senate. The House of Representative is elected and the Senate is appointed by the Head of State on the advice of the Prime Minister in a Parliamentary type while both houses are elected by the people in the Presidential system.

The parliamentary system is a system of democratic governance wherein the executive and legislative branches of the government are intertwined and are lead collectively by a Prime Minister who must have been proven to be competent and capable, as chosen among his party members. However, the Philippines is currently under the presidential system, also a system of democratic but republican governance, which is led this time by a president, and wherein there is a separation of powers between the executive and the legislative. In the presidential system, people have the collective power to vote for the president.

In the parliamentary system the executive and legislative are fused into one union that sets up and controls all of the government. They are the ones that decide on what policies and laws need to be implemented. In a parliamentary government both the legislative body and the executive body must be in accord on all policies. As long as they are not in agreement the policy cannot be accepted.

Parliament - Parliament is pretty much the identical to the legislative branch here in the US. The prime minister is accountable in his actions to the parliament. The parliament consists of the house of lords, house of commons and monarch.