The Perils Of Presidential Democracy By Juan Linz

The article I chose for this assignment was Power and the Presidency, From Kennedy to Obama written by Robert Dallek. I found this to be a very interesting article. This article is tied in with this week’s chapter because this week’s chapter was on the president. This article was on the increases in power of the executive branch. I learned more about the increase in power in the office of the president and how it has changed over time. I learned that the President’s control over foreign affairs has been growing since the Theodore Roosevelt administration. I learned Kennedy greatly expanded the power of the presidency particularly in the area of foreign affairs. I learned that by the early 1960s, the president had become the principle architect

The American democracy is one of the most peaceful kinds of government in the world although it is a long way from utopia. The democracy in which we live has many strengths and weaknesses. Neither strengths or weaknesses out weigh one another, but it is necessary to have both due to the varying definitions. A democracy is a government that is run by the people. The politicians that we elect to run our government are human and they are susceptible to mistakes based on their own strengths and weaknesses. The strengths and weaknesses they possess are reflected into our government but at least “we the people” elect them and they are not chosen for us.

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.

A constructive national debate is something that is quite important to the functioning of the American system of democracy. A simple definition of democracy offered by the Merriam-Webster dictionary is that democracy is “a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting” (Merriam-Webster). Now, at a time of heightened awareness from many American people, the political debates in this country don’t seem to be providing them with good cogent arguments. Instead they are filled with fallacies and many falsehoods. In this essay I argue that the presidential debate system is currently not living up to its potential, and I will focus specifically on Republican primary debate that took place at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California. In doing so, I will argue that the main flaws in this cycle’s presidential primary debates were the amount of fallacies used, as structure used as well as provide some counter-arguments to my claims.

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

In the 2016 presidential election, over ninety million eligible American citizens abstained from voting. Of course many citizens could have been busy that day, or forgot, or even falsely feel that voting is futile. All of these free non voters take their freedom for granted as upwards of two million convicted felons’ votes are stolen by the government because of their criminal behavior. Each of the fifty states in the U.S. recognize numerous specific and confusing laws on whether or not felons deserve the right to vote after they complete their sentences, which leads to one fifth of all criminals losing their voting privileges once incarcerated. Despite the severity of disenfranchisement, the federal government has

The United States has a system based on the principles of equality, majority rule and the preservation of minority rights. It is the oldest remaining democracy and has the oldest written constitution in the world today. Not only that, but it also is one of the first systems to embrace the idea of popular sovereignty. When researching this case in comparative politics, one of the overall themes was that political competition occurs consistently in the United States. Examples include federalism and the separation of powers, which allows voters in the United States to go to the polls far more than compared to other democracies. It can also be seen through the separate party system that causes division between groups, hence the competition. Another idea revealed in the case is that

A work of fiction, Democracy: An American Novel, is a novel in which Henry Adams skillfully addresses many social commentaries through satire and interesting characters. This novel can simply be described as a political love story. The main character, Mrs. Madeline Lightfoot Lee, originally leads her life as a “private philanthropist, amateur philosopher, and socialite” in New York (Adams v). After her husband and child died she lost her “taste for New York society” and everything that was in it (Adams 14). Eventually she became tired of her life in New York and decided to go to Washington D.C. to see what life had to offer her. The book has many parallels to Henry Adam’s own life. For example, when Mrs. Lee moved to Washington she lived on Lafayette Square, as did Henry Adams (“Washington, D.C.”). Madeline Lee is the kind of character who loves power, and she knew exactly where to look. Aside from finding out what exactly lay at the center of democracy and government, she wanted to see “the clash of interests, the interests of forty millions of people and a whole continent, centering at Washington; guided, restrained, controlled, or unrestrained and uncontrollable, by men of ordinary mould; the tremendous forces of government, and the machinery of society at work. What she wanted was POWER” (Adams 18). She was not the only one to travel to Washington, however. Madeline’s sister, Miss. Sybil Ross, came along with her. The two would much rather describe themselves as

Governance is not constant. Throughout history the use of government has been constantly evolving; from monarchies and dictatorships to constitutional and democratic republics. Some forms of government last longer than others. Many modern political philosophers agree that the key to a successful government is survival, which The United States government seems to agree with; due to the fact that it has lasted significantly longer than other governments. The U.S Government has been surviving for over 200 years now. Modern political philosophers: Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke would all agree that the United State’s democracy is a solid form of government. They would also recognize a good amount of their own ideas within the government. The U.S government was developed by incorporating the ideas of the previously mentioned political philosophers as well as others. In this paper, I will be discussing the influence Machiavelli, Hobbes and Locke’s had on the U.S government, in addition to the generation and justification of my own “ideal” form of government.

Democracy a universally recognized phenomenon refers to a government deriving its power from the people and being answerable to them (Fox 2008). President Abraham Lincoln (Gettysburg Address, 1863) said about democracy "...is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not vanish from this earth ‘ (Fox 2008). The foundations of democracy in America are found within, “The Declaration of Independence of 1776” and “The Constitution of 1789”, both products of the American Revolution where equality and the rights of man were the focus of their creation (Rodgers 2001). The first half of this paper discusses the notion that despite having the best institutional powers that uphold democratic functions within the American government, this doesn’t always translate into the perfect democratic election.

The American Presidency is undoubtedly one of the most widely recognized popular icons throughout the world. Although to most foreigners or those who have never resided in the United States or know little of its history, the executive branch of government may seem to be as dull and unyielding as the rest of the American politics, for those few rare individuals who have taken the time to examine and closely scrutinize this office of the American political system and its recent history, quite the opposite will be said. Unlike Congressional or local elections where typically a number of individuals of the same ideological background must be elected in order for a particular issue to be

Thomas Jefferson once wrote in the Declaration of Independence, “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Today, this quote stands tall in defining and describing the type of government the United States has created for the people. A democracy is a supreme power

Democracy is a unique type of government, and the purpose of this essay is to illustrate the strengths and weaknesses that a democratic government provides. I will detail that many components of this type of society are both strengths and weakness as each component has beneficial aspects as well as unavoidable pitfalls.

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

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