What Are The Advantages And Disadvantages Of Parliamentarism?

depends on what the relationship is between the executive structure and legislative system. Under a presidential system the executive and legislative branches are separated so that it is easier to distribute power equally and ensure that those in power are held accountable. Although they don’t hold “checks and balances”, under a parliamentary system, the government can be more effective when they do not separate the executive and legislative branches. This allows the government to accomplish more because they can pass more legislations faster. It is more difficult to pass policies under a presidential system because, unlike in parliamentary systems, they are unable to produce comprehensive proposals in a promptly manner. Still, problems can arise in parliamentary systems. For example, there may be “immobilism” in parliamentary systems, similar to the deadlocks in presidential systems, which could cause a delay in the process of making legislations. It is also more difficult to fix problems between the legislative and executive branches in a presidential system because each side will continue to fight over the power to pass laws and adjust it in the way they want. If the legislative branches are weakened, there is more probability of presidentialism failing than parliamentarism. Therefore, implementing a parliamentary executive structure could be an effective

    The overall organization of the U.S. and Irish government has a lot of similarities but also has its differences. Ireland is known to be a parliamentary democracy and has 3 branches of government, which are the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary branch. The United States is similar in the way that they also have three branches of government which are the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branch and has a democracy. The constitution was the foundation for the U.S government just like it was for the Irish government and how they govern their country. In Ireland there are many political parties while in the U.S. there are mainly only two. The Irish constitution applies to the 32 counties in Ireland but in the United States it refers to the 50 states.  In Ireland their common law system is based on the English model and in the United States it’s based on the English common law.

Britain, for instance, one of the most stable parliamentary systems within our society does present an example for a parliamentary government in many aspects. For one, their parliamentary system creates clear access points to power with in the government. There is a much smaller breakdown of the “parts” of the government: The prime minister, and his political party, elected before him. The only other significant factions would be regulatory agencies, who are under the direct control of the majority. In Britain’s case the secretary of state, i.e. foreign minister are actual legislatures and therefore are more capable of introducing and even

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.

An advantage to a parliamentary system is that it is much quicker to pass legislations because it is the majority of votes in the House of Representatives that say either yes or no to passing that legislation. Another advantage to this type of government is also a unified government where the prime minister works with the government on legislations that also passes those legislations quicker. A disadvantage is that Australian citizens don’t get the choice of whom they want as their Prime Minister. They get to choose which party they want to become “head party” then the house of representatives vote for a leader in the “head party”. Another disadvantage is that it is a very unstable government. By unstable I mean that the House of Representatives can easily vote the prime minister out of his/ her position. This has occurred in Australia multiple times especially in the past 5

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

One of the reasons presidents are less powerful than prime ministers is because no sitting member of congress can hold office in an executive branch, where as a person chosen by a prime minister to be in the cabinet are always members of parliament. That is a huge difference because the prime ministers pick all of their cabinet ministers from among parliament. This is a great way to exercise control over the government because if you have people from congress in your cabinet, you will be able to

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 Constitutional division of government will benefit the people. With the central government broken into three branches, each with the ability to overrule the other in some sort, a return to a monarchy is impossible. Too often in history a small group or even a single tyrant has acquired far too much power, inevitably leading to corruption and abuse – the Constitution is designed to combat this exact phenomenon. The creation of an independent executive will allow the President to craft his own policies, but also allows for other bodies of government to counter any actions that are out of hand. Should the executive come from an elected body, such as the Senate, then the executive will be beholden exclusively to their wishes, not those of the people. The independence of the president allows some freedom to act and ensures that the executive will not simply be a servant of a small elite body – but instead the common public.

      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.

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

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

In the parliamentary system the executive and legislative are fused into one union that sets up and controls all of the government. They are the ones that decide on what policies and laws need to be implemented. In a parliamentary government both the legislative body and the executive body must be in accord on all policies. As long as they are not in agreement the policy cannot be accepted.

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

parlance). These ministers are usually not simultaneously members of the legislature, although their appointment may require the advice and consent of the legislative branch. Because the senior officials of the executive branch are separately elected of appointed, the presidential political system is characterized by a separation of powers, wherein the executive and legislative branches are independent of one another. Presidents have greater control over their cabinet appointees who serve at the President's pleasure, and who are usually selected for reasons other than the extent of their congressional support (as in parliamentary systems). The U.S. represents the strongest form of presidentialism, in the sense that the powers of the executive and legislative branches are separate, and legislatures (national and state) often have significant powers.