Presidential Vs. Parliamentary Systems Of Government

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.

The last of Europe's absolute rulers was overthrown, and Russia was the first to form a new government. However, many of the newly democratic nations had little experience with a representative government. A large number of political parties developed, making effective government difficult. Coalition governments (temporary alliances of several parties) were sometimes formed, but they often did not last long because of the differences between the parties. As a result, changes in government were frequent and made it difficult for nations to form strong leadership and work towards their long-term goals.

The opposed leader is more independent from previously established commitments and can more easily justify his exercise of power. By understanding the concept of Skowronek’s phases in a political regime in relation to the president’s party, affiliated or opposed, it is now possible to explain Skowronek’s recurrent structure of presidential authority.

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

Throughout history, there have been many systems of government that have been created, and have revolutionised todays modern forms of government. Democracy, Monarchy, Dictatorship, Theocracy, and Anarchy all use various, unique techniques on how to run a civilization. Each of them require different leadership traits in order for it to work properly.

      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 chief executive and the head of state. The President is elected independently of the

As regards electoral systems, Frances majoritarian two-round system is a more simple method, delivering the greater amount of seats to the main parties of the left and right over smaller parties. Although harming representation, this helps in the creation of stable governments. The PR-List system of Germany theoretically ensures minority representation to a greater degree than the French system, while at the same time maintaining two main parties (representing the left and right, in broad terms). Coalitions though are still a common outcome, such as today’s SPD and CDU/CSU government, and thus governments are not as strong as France. Representation may be greater, but stability is weaker. Ultimately, the system preferred by a nation depends upon the political circumstances of that country, such as France’s centralism and Germany’s federalism, and their benefits and weaknesses

The parliamentary system is a system of democratic governance wherein the executive and legislative branches of the government are intertwined and are lead collectively by a Prime Minister who must have been proven to be competent and capable, as chosen among his party members. However, the Philippines is currently under the presidential system, also a system of democratic but republican governance, which is led this time by a president, and wherein there is a separation of powers between the executive and the legislative. In the presidential system, people have the collective power to vote for the president.

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.

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

Canada and the U.S. are ruled under two different political systems of government which are parliamentary government and presidential government. These two government systems are the most fundamental and dominant government methods in the world. The main issue and debate that has been concerned is that which form of government is more superior to the other. It will provide on the characteristics of parliamentary system and also characteristics of the presidential system. Moreover, comparison of main elements of these two systems will be examined as well. Contemporary examples from both the Canadian and the U.S system will be illustrated to strengthen main differences. This paper will

"As at present constituted, the federal government [of the United States of America] lacks strength because its powers are divided, lacks promptness because its authorities are multiplied, lacks wieldiness because its processes are roundabout, lacks efficiency because its responsibility is indistinct and its action is without competent direction." Although this statement, by Woodrow Wilson, was made in the 1920's, it can still be argued today on account of the fact that not much has changed in the way the United States government operates. Still existing in the American way of governing is the theory of the separation of powers, which was evolved within the

Russia’s Return as a Superpower. There are concerns that Russia may once again “reassert itself militarily” (Wood 7). After the original fall of communism in 1991, Russia seemed to be on a path to democracy. Currently the notion of a democratic Russia seems to be fading as Russia “has been centralizing more and more power in the Kremlin” (Putin 2). Regional governors, who were once elected by the people, are now being appointed by Moscow.