Democracy has in the 20th and 21st century grown in popularity, which has been credited due to the

An essential part of every nation lies in the structure of its government. There are many types of political systems such as dictatorships, monarchies, oligarchies and specifically what this essay is concerned about: democracies. The United States’ presidential system and Great Britain’s parliamentary system have both adopted a democratic type of government. Despite bearing some minor similarities, the differences between the United States presidential system and Great Britain’s parliamentary system are pronounced.

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

They note that there are more successful parliamentary governments than presidential ones. “Aside from the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional continuity under presidential government” (Linz 52). They also argue that presidentialism is more likely to engage in gridlock, which is when there is too much disagreement within a government system and the passage of laws is slowed or stymied as a result. They attribute this to the “winner‐takes‐all logic and is particularly prone to institutional deadlock…[that] may result in the marginalization of ethnic groups, thus fostering violent reactions by the losing group” (Basedau 171). They also like to discuss how fractionalized the legislature can become under presidentialism. In fact, “extreme fractionalization—in which no party controls more than a third of the seats—is more frequent under presidentialism (occurring 18 percent of the time) than under parliamentarism (where it occurs only 8.9 percent of the time)”(Cheibub et al. 45). Lastly, one can notice that a lot of scholars in this camp tackle presidentialism by being skeptical of the style of politics it encourages. To them, since the executive must appeal to the masses for votes and not the legislative, the campaign for the executive (the president) turns into a personality contest and is devoid of

Sir Winston Churchill once said, “Many forms of government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” The governments that Entdeckungland has previously tried have not satisfied its people. Being that Entdeckungland, following President Best’s sudden death, is in a current state of instability the following proposed institutions are designed to define office, authority, and sequence and help transition the country to a functioning democracy. These institutions in combination with the preferences of the

Democracy: A political system in which citizens enjoy a number of basic civil and political rights, and in which their most important political leaders are elected in free and fair elections and accountable under a rule of law (26). In the studies we have undertaken, comparing and exploring various countries and systems politically, economically, and psychologically throughout the quarter, this outcry of democracy has prevailed as a main theme. Successful countries such as the United States and Great Britain are based upon such democratic ideals. It is no wonder that countries have striven more recently toward this goal of democratization. Both the Russian and Mexican revolutions prove that democracy is an attainable goal in the next

Many ancient regimes throughout the world teased with the idea of basic personal rights and elections , but not until the 6th century did this form of government become a legitimate way to exercise a country's control. The earliest traces of democracy can be seen in Ancient Greece, “the birthplace of democracy”, which can be attributed for democracy through their radical political ideas. Since then the idea of democracy has slowly grown, and in some countries decayed into another form of government. Without this evolution and radical thinking where would our country be today? Would we be living in a country that allows our leader to get away with murder? A communist government led by a corrupt leader or system? Democracy did

As democracy is in play, the public has all the power and can move to continue with a certain form of representation or to change to something else. The public also has also been determined to hold the power in influencing policies in the sense that they choose which leaders to elect given the mandates they will claim to fulfill. Representation is an important issue as it influences how a country will achieve its objectives and how the leaders chosen will go about

Every since the turn of the 19th century, democracy, the core value and principle of the United Nations, has grown strong in many parts of Europe, North America, Latin America, and East Asia. However, many parts of the world still lay under authoritarian rule, and the change to democracy involves violent demonstrations and protests, riots and even civil wars. These violent transitions towards democracy result in an unstable foundation for the emerging democracies, especially when the country not only has to face the challenge of keeping their new government in check, but also enforce safety measures with subsequent planning to prevent a relapse into chaos and violence. The best option seems to be achieving independence by all means possible.

Presidentialism is a system of government in which the president is elected both chief executives and as head of government (Ogelsby & Suárez, 1968) and is the main system of democratic government apart from parliamentary systems. Presidential systems tend to centralise priorities of the government to stabilise society. Normally, they are classed into separate regions of power; where the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government are dependent on one another and cannot work effectively in deeply divided societies. This argument is ruled by the fact that they are 1) divisive, causing isolation between ethnoreligious groups. Elites are prioritised over minority working class groups and 2) inherently majoritarian, as only a single position is given causing proportionality to become impossible. In places such as Latin America and Northern Ireland, we see the ways in which these theories have proven ineffectiveness. However, presidential systems aim to separate powers in order to protect citizens’ rights and deter abuse of power for good governance overall. Through this presidential systems, however, have quick decisiveness in resolving societal issues. Without effective separation; executive, legislative and judicial powers,

All of these features of a regime, if disrupted or altered, could be the difference between a stable democracy and it demonstrating a radical archetype of ascendancy. After explaining both alternatives, Mainwaring comes to the conclusion that “Presidentialism and a fractionalized multi party system seems especially inimical to stable democracy” in that they are conducive to gridlock between the executive and legislative branches of government. (Mainwaring, p. 168)

When people talk about democracy, they almost always associate different words with it. Free, equal, fair, crooked, maybe even unnecessary. However, democracy at it’s core idea, pure democracy, is one of the best types of government to allow freedom. Democracy is created to grow an equal system where everyone’s opinion is valid, valued, and counted. Over time, both how democracy has worked and the definition of freedom have changed. This has given way to more and more arguments about how the two function together. Pure democracy is utterly compatible with freedom, the problem is we no longer have pure democracy.

Presidentialism and Parliamentarism have been the two-dominant democratic constitutional frameworks in around the world. Prominently practice the former by the USA and the latter by the Europe. These two constitutional frameworks affect the decision-making and policy-making, and political outcomes of the government and its political institutions. However, considering two frameworks as prevalent and eminent, there is rise of different contentions like which is better, more democratic, and such. To debunk the contentions, we could utilize one of the Neo-institutional approaches which is Rational Choice Institutionalism.

When discussing the twentieth century in Europe everyone can agree that this period was a brutal one for the continent. A common opinion, many have is that despite all of the turmoil experienced throughout this period, including two world wars, the success of democracy as a style of government was never truly in doubt. This paper will go against this widely held belief, and argue that democracy’s success in this period was not written in stone.

Since the initiation of the Third Wave of Democracy, several countries have attempted to form a democratic system of governs. We take note that not all have succeeded. At the dawn of this era, democracy was being applied to countries with no prior history of a governing body that was place by the people for the people hence success of such a system could not be guaranteed because of the innumerous variables that existed in each country. People being the highlighted factor of variance, it may become easier to understand how countries such as Pakistan and Nigeria, both countries prior to the Wave had no local governing machinery. Pakistan further endured a partition from India which resulted in not only an instant religious and