There are two main types of democratic systems in the world today: Parliamentary and Presidential. More important than any difference is the fact that these two forms of governments are democracies. This being a fundamental similarity for the two, the people are allowed to vote for their leaders in both a parliamentary and presidential democracy (Comparision). Most people take part in political life by way of elections; this is common for both types of democracies. For example, Great Britain, being a parliament, revolves around two main political parties: Labour and Conservatives. The party with the greatest representation forms the government. A Prime Minister is then selected from the leading party and then becomes the head of state (Hauss …show more content…
The Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers can be removed from office if it loses the confidence of the majority party. Basically, if the people of parliament do not like what is going on, then there can be a vote or ruling to decide whether the Prime Minister needs to be removed from office (Hauss 126). The President in a presidential system typically has a fixed term lasting four to eight years, due to the fact that it is more difficult to impeach a president versus a receiving a vote of no confidence (Carabajal). Furthermore, in a parliament system there is no strict separation of powers because the ministers are also members of legislature. There are however incredibly strict separation of powers in a presidential system. For example, in the United States , the President and the secretaries are not members of Congress (Comparison). There is a relatively low chance for gridlock in a parliamentary democracy due to the fact that the majority party supports the Prime Minister and so there is agreement and support on the decisions that are made. Whereas in a presidential democracy there is and increased chance for gridlock due to the multiple claims of legitimacy between executive and legislative branches in the government
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).
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.
many elect the few who govern. Pure or direct democracies (countries in which all the citizens
Brazil can be compared to the United States in several aspects. Both countries have a lot of things in common; however, we can point some differences too.
office by the legislature but the way of it is different. Dissimilar feature is the election of
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
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 structure of a governments and party systems are of crucial importance for the functioning and well stable effective government. In this case let’s take example of United States and United Kingdom.
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
Most European countries have a parliamentary political system. Britain has a parliamentary system. Britain’s system starts at the voters who vote for Parliament. Parliament then elects and can oust the executive branch, which is headed by a prime
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
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.
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.
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.