Disadvantages Of Parliamentarism

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

Parliament is very effective when dealing with the public and their interests and needs like when they redress public grievances to make sure they are listened too. However, parliament isn’t so effective on the representative side of things. This is because the electoral system that we use isn’t very fair and excludes smaller parties of a chance of being voted into parliament. This therefore means a large number of public votes have been

The parliamentary system allowed kings to be more aware of the different regions and customs of the population, therefore allowing them to have more freedoms. Also, the gentry could advise the king on issues such as war and taxes so he would know what is unfair to the population, where if he was absolute, he could make whatever tax he wanted. Parliament also allowed for the separation of power into judicial and legislative branches, further strengthening the government because the two areas would not be headed solely by the monarch. Structures such as the Bill of Rights and the system of checks allowed constitutional monarchies to rule more efficiently at the end of the 17th century and on to the

These sorts of powers would generally be associated with a President, not a Prime Minister.

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.

Under the British constitution, parliament is sovereign. This means, amongst other things, that Parliament has a monopoly on making and amending laws. The British constitution, and the three functions of government which operate it often falls short of creating a definitive separation. Separation of powers refers to the idea that the major institutions of government should function independent of each other, in a utopian world there should aim to be a balance between the Crown and Parliament. In practice however, separation between the executive and legislature is near enough non-existent, an example being that government is made up almost entirely of MPs. Contrast this with the USA where no member of Obama’s government is equally a member of congress. However, the USA does have a codified constitution, a constitution written to delegate a clear separation of power. As we are well aware the UK doesn’t have such a constitution, the rules that

Parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law are both concepts that are key to shaping the British constitution, however there is ambiguity as to which concept is the heart of the UK’s constitutional arrangement in the recent years.

Another source of presidential power that stems from the Constitution is the deceptively simple fact that the American president is both head of state and head of government (Romance, July 27). Unlike in several other democracies, such as in Great Britain where these two functions are split between the monarch and a prime minister, an American president has the ability to both symbolically represent the and to lead the nation (July 27). Even this is both a blessing and a curse because it forces a president to constantly live both roles and know exactly when to stress the appropriate one over the other (July 27).

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.

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.

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

The monarch is a figure head and does no decision making. The voters of a parliamentary system elect parliament who then elect the prime minister and the cabinet. The prime minister is normally the leader of the most popular party in parliament. The PM even being the head of government is not as powerful as the head of government in a presidential system. The parliament of the system withholds the most power. They make or break any law. Compared to the separation of powers as in a presidential system there is only a separation of functions. Each part of government has its own function to perform, but there is no system of checks and balances. An example of the overlapping of powers is the need of a vote of confidence. A vote of confidence is proposed by a party and needs backing from the other part of government. With no system of sorts there is more likely of upheaval and change of rule. There is not as much stability in a parliamentary system as there is in a presidential. Lastly there is no judicial rule as there is in a presidential system. A parliamentary system has had success in the past but still is seen as not as successful as a presidential system.

office by the legislature but the way of it is different. Dissimilar feature is the election of

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.

The President is meant to put serving the people first before their own interests. When Tanzania recently had a change in Presidency to John Magufuli, a number of changes happened very swiftly. Magufuli started by cutting his own salary as he felt it was unnecessary for him to be getting so much money in the current economic state Tanzania is in. He made a conscious choice to cause change and growth in the people of Tanzania. This leadership act he committed was effective in producing a different mind set within the Tanzanian people in that they are now ready to be more active and participate in changing what is wrong with the