Political Stability in New Democracies: Presidentialism or Parliamentarism?

Furthermore The First past the Post system gives rise to a coherent opposition in the legislature. In theory, the flip side of a strong single-party government is that the opposition is also given enough seats to perform a critical checking role and present itself as a realistic alternative to the government of the day. It advantages broadly-based political parties. In severely ethnically or regionally divided societies, FPTP is commended for encouraging political parties to be ‘broad churches’, encompassing many elements of society, particularly when there are only two major parties and many different societal groups. These parties can then field a diverse array of candidates for election. In Malaysia, for example, the Barisan Nasional government is made up of a broadly-based umbrella movement which fields Malay, Chinese, and Indian candidates in areas of various ethnic complexions.

Government is an essential part of civilization in modern and historic times. This crucial element of society has been observed in different forms. There are three main systems of governments: autocracy, oligarchy, and democracy. Which system a government belongs to is determined by who hold the sovereignty, meaning who has the supreme power and authority (“Sovereignty”). This leads to there being major differences between autocracies, oligarchies, and democracies.

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

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

Firstly, due to the larger number of political parties, it can cause instability and voter confusion on who they should vote for. This chaos can be seen in “Israel’s proportional representation system during their parliamentary election in 1988 (Barnes)”. Italy as well has dealt with a “voter revolt against a PR system (Barnes).” Political instability is not good for a countries government, especially if the instability allows radical minor parties like Neo-Nazis to gain a seat as representatives. Another issue with proportional representation system are that in order for it to be successful there needs to be a high voter turn-out. However, proportional representation system supporters believe that the system will, in fact, bring more voters to elections because there will be more people to choose from that they feel represent them the best. Proportional representation system supporters also state that reasoning for Israel’s and Italy’s chaos with their proportional system is due to them “using a party list system to allocate the seats (Cossolotto).” The chaos was brought about simply because it is a proportional representation system but what kind of PR system it was. Another solution the PR system has when it comes to making sure radical minority groups don’t come into power is setting a minimum amount of percentage that the party needs in order to claim a seat. When it comes to advantages with

In this paper I argue that the US electorate is not polarized or deeply divided, instead, the electorate is forced to choose between two extremes making it appear as if they are divided when in reality they have many similar views on many issues. I base my argument on Table 1 and 2 in Alan Abramowitz’s essay that shows how the US electorate have to choose between two parties although they may not feel as strong about the topic like the candidate. Tables 5 and 7 in Morris Fiorina’s essay convince me that the US electorate is not polarized, in fact there are many idealogical similarities, however, parties push agenda’s that are highly divided and polarized therefore people have to choose between the two, that is closest to their views, either religious or cultural, although they may not completely agree with them.

I also believe that representative democracy will be the best choice because of the large population of people living in the

      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.

The European Union (EU) is fundamentally democratic and is evident through its institutions, however, the current democratic electoral structure is of great concern. The EU is a new type of political system, often referred to as a sui generis, implying its uniqueness as there exists and a non comparable political body. The EU can neither regarded as a ‘state’ nor as an ‘international institution’ as it combines supranational as well as intergovernmental characteristics (Hix, 1999, p7). In this regard it has developed its own understandings of what democracy is. It is evident that the development of and spread of democracy is a central concept and foundation to all politics within the EU, and remains focuses on makings its governing

Presidentialism is a fixed term, and Linz acknowledges that both presidential and parliamentary regime types have created stable democracies across the world, he argues that there are shortcomings associated with presidentialism that make it a less suitable institutional choice for fledgling democracies. He also states that presidentialism holds within itself a constant paradox. “Brazilian history provides us with examples of the first situation, while Maria

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

The way that a country is controlled by the government depends on the relationship between the legislative and executive authority. Most democratic nations, today, generally use one of two governmental systems, either a parliamentary system or a presidential system. Today most of Europe prefers to use a parliamentary system, whereas the presidential form of government is preferred in places such as South Korea, South America and the United States. The differences between these two governmental systems are not obvious at first, but there are some key differences. However, neither one of them is necessarily superior to the other.

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

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