Presidential vs. Parliamentary Political Systems Essay

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

I chose these two systems, which interest me for different reasons. The British system is one that has evolved over many centuries, with both small and large adjustments along the way to keep in on course. In contrast to this, the French model has changed dramatically on several occasions, and can rarely have been described as stable. However, in 1958 Charles de Gaulle made some brave changes to the constitution, which after being approved by the French public, set the scene for the classic semi-presidential system that we see today.

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.

As mentioned the government is ran by the people this type of government is a Democracy but not like the U.S.A There is no specific leader each and every vote counts .All is voted upon and this is non negotiable.

Separation of Power and Presidency This particular article focuses on the question whether the separation of power leads to a monarchical presidency. The author starts by contrasting the parliamentary system against the presidential one with regard to limiting the misuse of the executive power. The parliamentary system restrains it powers better as compared to the presidential one which results to the president appearing to be a king. The separation of power was intended to divide the powers between the congress and the presidency so that power could not be more or too much on one arm of the government.

Constitution embraced separation of powers. They justified the independence of the executive, legislative, and judicial. They provided for a system in which some powers should be shared. Congress may pass laws, but the president can veto them and the president nominates certain public officials, but Congress must approve the appointments. Also, laws passed by Congress and executive actions are subject to judicial revision. By contrast, in Britain, the legislature holds absolute power. Members of the legislature choose the Prime Minister from among their own number. The cabinet members must also belong to the legislature, where they have the same kind of questioning the prime minister experiences. If the prime minister loses the support of the majority in the legislature, he or she must resign, and elections are called

The Presidential Political system is deeply rooted in two main beliefs: the belief in a strong federal government or the belief of strong state governments. Essentially, these beliefs are the basis of the Democrats versus the Republicans, respectively. The two party system in America has been successful since its inception, it has served as a type of balance—both Democrats and Republicans have been Presidents at one point. However, it is possible that America is getting to the point where this is simply not cutting it; according to Matthew Yglesias, “American Democracy is doomed,” and it may be time to approach our government a different way. The Parliamentary system is possibly a different way of approaching it where the basis remains similar:

The comparison of the U.S. Congressional/Presidential system to parliamentarian system can be traced back to Woodrow Wilsons Congressional Government, where he viewed the British system as perfected party government system.

In Parliamentary systems the leader is chosen by their respective party while in a Presidential system the voter is able to directly elect their president. In parliamentary government the party must retain the confidence of the legislature in order

Can presidential systems work effectively in deeply divided societies? [Make reference to at least two cases of your choosing.]

Canada’s political system is bases on a democratic constitutional monarchy It is a political system referred to legislature, which is created to lower the power and monarchy. In Canada, the legislative branch includes the House of Commons, the Senate and the governor general, which refers to the part of the government that create the laws Canada's legislature system is democratic, which allows members to suggest and propose laws. Before becoming a law, a bill must pass through several stages, throughout these stages, the members of the minister can improve the law The House of Commons and the Senate must both equally approve the bills before it is processed as a

In times of peace and in times of peril, great leaders experience the highs and lows of their office, and are eternally judged through the microscope of history. Although both icons play a similar role in the executive leadership in government of their country, there are several differences which separate the President of the United States and the British Prime Minister. The President is directly elected by the people every four years through the electoral college. The candidate that acquires the greatest amount of votes claims the presidency and is allowed to serve up to two, four year terms.

office by the legislature but the way of it is different. Dissimilar feature is the election of

Parliamentary democracy is the type of government where the public vote government into power and parliamentarians are representative of the people. While a Presidential Democracy is when there is a system of government that has a president acting as the nation’s head of state and active chief executive authority. The similarities between the Presidential and Parliamentary model are: both are representative democracies, both have a head of state, both have a bicameral form of gover

Parliament - Parliament is pretty much the identical to the legislative branch here in the US. The prime minister is accountable in his actions to the parliament. The parliament consists of the house of lords, house of commons and monarch.