The Importance Of A Parliamentary System For The Nation Of Bigmessia

Throughout the world there are many diverse political cultures. A political culture is the attitudes, beliefs or practices among a group of likeminded individuals. (Giardino pg. 27) There are different categories that embrace a political culture like an Individualistic, traditionalistic and moralistic. An individualistic culture is one that prefers less government involvement. The traditionalists’ culture maintains government as the social and economic hierarchy and does not like change. The moralistic culture favors public good and it revolves around social issues. In shaping a political culture demographics such as population size, growth, distribution and diversity are essential to determine how a state is in any of the three categories. Society is strongly affected by decisions of who, what and when does an individual receive any types of goods or services. Government is the structure, buildings and institutions that are held within politics.

The Parliamentary Democratic System was created in the 13th century. “Deriving from the word ‘Parley’, it means to meet and discuss, which was used by King Henry and his Noblemen in the Great Council” (Szilagyi, 2009). After a short time the Great Council became the House of Commons, which includes three forms of government. The forms are the King/Queen, the ‘House of the Lords’, and the House of Commons. The House of Commons is the only part of government that includes over 1220 people, elected by the eldest people in the country, and has the least amount of power as opposed to the other parts of government. As you go deeper into how these systems work you began to realize the evolution of it all.

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.

The authors worst argument is that without a large Republic, the country will not be unified. This argument is the worst because each state has it’s own priorities and problems. For

We the people of Alpine Island, in order to promote and encourage the welfare of this country and everyone who lives here, preserve everyone’s rights, and protect all who live on this island, do ordain we establish this Constitution.

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

Over the years, political scientists have expressed their disapproval of American elections. They have openly stated that presidential elections do not matter. The reason being, is that they believe the outcome of elections is a result of forces outside of the campaigner’s influence. For example, the state of the economy, partisan loyalties, and normative, communicative, and symbolic roles are all disconnected from the influence of the campaigner. The latter mentioned aspects (anthropological), according to political scientists, receive little attention from scholars, but their impacts are very substantial. They restore confidence in governing institutions, result in an upsurge in mutual feelings, and give the citizenry hope of a better governing body after elections

In this paper I argue that the US electorate is not polarized or deeply divided, instead, the electorate is forced to choose between two extremes making it appear as if they are divided when in reality they have many similar views on many issues. I base my argument on Table 1 and 2 in Alan Abramowitz’s essay that shows how the US electorate have to choose between two parties although they may not feel as strong about the topic like the candidate. Tables 5 and 7 in Morris Fiorina’s essay convince me that the US electorate is not polarized, in fact there are many idealogical similarities, however, parties push agenda’s that are highly divided and polarized therefore people have to choose between the two, that is closest to their views, either religious or cultural, although they may not completely agree with them.

      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.

Presidentialism is a fixed term, and Linz acknowledges that both presidential and parliamentary regime types have created stable democracies across the world, he argues that there are shortcomings associated with presidentialism that make it a less suitable institutional choice for fledgling democracies. He also states that presidentialism holds within itself a constant paradox. “Brazilian history provides us with examples of the first situation, while Maria

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.

“The health of a democracy depends on the choice of representatives and leaders, which in turn is directly linked to the way political parties function and elections are conducted”.

Since the initiation of the Third Wave of Democracy, several countries have attempted to form a democratic system of governs. We take note that not all have succeeded. At the dawn of this era, democracy was being applied to countries with no prior history of a governing body that was place by the people for the people hence success of such a system could not be guaranteed because of the innumerous variables that existed in each country. People being the highlighted factor of variance, it may become easier to understand how countries such as Pakistan and Nigeria, both countries prior to the Wave had no local governing machinery. Pakistan further endured a partition from India which resulted in not only an instant religious and

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

Finland is a parliamentary democracy with a multiparty political system. It has a mixed presidential and parliamentary system with executive powers divided between the president and the prime minister. The president is the head of state and the commander-in-chief of the Defense Forces who oversees national security and foreign affairs. The president is elected for a term of six years and may hold up to two consecutive terms maximum. The president’s power has been slightly reduced since the constitutional change in 2000 giving the prime minister, who is appointed by the president, a little more power. Although its power has weakened, it still plays an important part in political affairs. The legislative power of Finland is allocated to the Finnish Parliament. It consists of 200 members that are elected every 4 years. The Parliament has three main function; it passes laws, it approves the national budget, and it oversees the government. The executive power is exercised by the Council of State, which is led by the prime minister. The Council of State is the government and it has 12 ministries that are responsible for their own department of the government such as the Ministry of Finance, Justice, etc.