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.

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

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

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

One of the reasons presidents are less powerful than prime ministers is because no sitting member of congress can hold office in an executive branch, where as a person chosen by a prime minister to be in the cabinet are always members of parliament. That is a huge difference because the prime ministers pick all of their cabinet ministers from among parliament. This is a great way to exercise control over the government because if you have people from congress in your cabinet, you will be able to

Two different forms of democracy are representative democracy and direct democracy. Representative democracy is where a set of officials are elected to represent a group of people. In the United States an elected representative would represent a state such as South Dakota. In a direct democracy, there is no middle man but the people represent themselves. Plato possibly the greatest western philosopher took a very interesting take on democracy government. In short he says

They can either have equal power or one will be superior to the other one. This is where checks and balances does its best work. Legislature is divided to keep it from being able to hold all the power, then lets not forget about the powers of Congress has on everything else. The Senate acts as a break in regards to major changes to laws, which could be a good thing. The bicameral systems uphold democracy and ride shotgun on the rules of law.

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

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.

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.

On one hand, the similarities between the two systems can be summed up in one word: democracy. This entails the basic standards of

      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.

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

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.

parlance). These ministers are usually not simultaneously members of the legislature, although their appointment may require the advice and consent of the legislative branch. Because the senior officials of the executive branch are separately elected of appointed, the presidential political system is characterized by a separation of powers, wherein the executive and legislative branches are independent of one another. Presidents have greater control over their cabinet appointees who serve at the President's pleasure, and who are usually selected for reasons other than the extent of their congressional support (as in parliamentary systems). The U.S. represents the strongest form of presidentialism, in the sense that the powers of the executive and legislative branches are separate, and legislatures (national and state) often have significant powers.