Presidential Democracy

Another reason why the House of Commons is more effective in checking government power is Prime ministers Question Time, which is a weekly slot where MPs can ask one notified question of the Prime Minister and one unscripted supplementary question. These are also usually dominated by the PM and the leader of the opposition who can ask four or five supplementary questions. Question Time also extends to other ministers, forcing them to answer oral questions from MPs. On occasion Prime Minister question time can expose a PM or seem to sum up the political weather, for example Tony Blair said to John Major “You’re weak, weak, weak”. Furthermore, PM questions are very high profile due to the high amount coverage via the media and the one occasion in the week where much of the population will form a judgement on the two main party leaders. Also, the vast majority of the government can only be questioned in the House of Commons.

A president has a limit of time in office, and can serve up to two terms, four years at a time. I believe like this is a good and bad thing. While it gives our president time to make good decisions, and time to actually change things in our country, if the president has bad ratings, there is nothing we can do about it until his term is up. There is only one circumstance when a president can be voted out of office before his term is up, and that is called impeachment. This can happen when the president has committed acts treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, thus giving the power to the house of representatives to impeach him, and the senate the power to remove him for office, given a two-thirds vote to convict. This rarely happens though, and throughout history only two presidents have ever been impeached; Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998 (http://biden.senate.gov). In Canada, the Prime Minister’s terms of office are determined much differently. The prime minister is appointed by the Governor General on behalf of the queen. The governor general will typically pick the leader of the party that has the most seats in the house to maintain stability in the government. Unlike the president, the prime minister does not have a fixed term of office. Canada’s constitution, The Constitution of Canada, limits each parliament member to five years, and then a general

The United States elects a president that is both head of state and head of government. In other democracies, the leader of the government is not both head of state and head of government. In the American form of democracy, there are only two major political parties, in other governments there may be multiple parties represented (IIP Digital, 2008). Our president, and other government officials are elected for a specific period of time, whereas other governments may call an election at any time (IIP Digital, 2008).

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

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.

many elect the few who govern. Pure or direct democracies (countries in which all the citizens

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.

Advocates of the parliamentary form of government suggested a few competitive strengths of this system of government. Since it has gained a stable parliamentary majority, the government is able to smoothly process its legislative project. In addition, the government is adequately furnished that it could still choose to adopt measures designed to support the national interests while many strong sectional groups oppose such measures (Dyck, 2012). The prime minister is the leader of this type of government, who is obliged to be responsive to all its people’s demands. Also, the people have the right to vote and replace the prime minister due to any incompetency of governance that does not address and fulfill their desires. This is known as the non-confidence vote; the government may be removed when it has lost confidence in the parliament, and cause the head of state to resign a new government (Dyck, 2012). An example of such measure occurred in Britain on March 28th, 1979. When James Callaghan’s labour government was defeated in the House of Commons just by one vote, it was forced into an early election that was won by the opposition leader Margaret Thatcher (Dyck, 2012). In this case, it can avoid or at least reduce the period of legislative gridlock, because of its flexibility in elections and the power is centered in the country’s prime

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

We live in this country for the land, and the for the free as Americans we rely on many attributes in this world in order for us to live our lives. Our government has supplied us with many great things for us to be proud of. Our government is “the institutions and processes though which public policies are made for society.” (Edwards, Wattenberg, and Lineberry, p. 7). With all these institutions which includes the President, Congress, the courts and all the federal administrative agencies. These are the institutions that make up public policies for us, and to shape the way we live as Americans. The way this system has been operating through all the years has been

Democracy is a form of government which dominates the western world. In democracy, every person is given equal input into matters of the state, although this does happen to varying degrees. There exist many different types of democracy. Absolute or direct democracy occurs when each citizen personally participates in all decision-making processes. This system is difficult to maintain due to the vast number of people and the necessity for all people to be informed, logical, and educated when making many decisions. This form of democracy has not existed in significant sized populations. Representative democracy is a type of government in which the people elect government officials to make decisions concerning the state. The two most prevalent types of representative democracy are democratic republics and parliamentary democracies. In a democratic republic, such as the United States or Canada, the people elect both their representatives in government and their head of state. In a parliamentary democracy, such as the United Kingdom or Australia, the people elect their representatives and their representatives elect their head of state.

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

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