Presidential and Parliamentary Systems of Government - Term Paper Example

? Presidential and Parliamentary Systems of Government Introduction In the US, presidential democracy functions better under certain conditions such as separation of powers, and checks and balances, provided there is strict adherence to these requirements. The following discussion will establish this contention. This work deals with the description and analysis of political systems such as parliamentary democracy and presidential democracy. In this regard, strengths and weaknesses of both systems were taken up for discussion. In addition, the circumstances under which democracy will function better in countries with a presidential democracy, with a special focus on the US, were examined. Finally, conclusions were arrived at. The presidential separation of powers is not typical of modern constitutionalism. As such, there are several constitutional democracies that depict the commingling of governmental powers. Most of these systems of government are parliamentary systems. Such systems exhibit reliance of the head of government on the legislature for political survival. Another important trait exhibited by such governments is the power of the executive to declare elections by bringing about dissolution of the legislature.1 In the presidential systems of government, such powers are rarely encountered. These systems uphold the principle of separation of powers. The latter provides a governmental branch with the power to oversee the actions of the other branches, which generates a system of governance based on mutual distrust between the various branches of the government. Such invasive overlap among government branches ensures that no specific branch of government obtains absolute power.2 In the US, delegation of power is quite strong, and society is politically active to a considerable extent, and there is extraordinary support from all quarters to the principle of democracy. Thus, the US represents a strong presidential system of government that differs from the Westminster model of democracy. The latter supports parliamentary democracy.3 The presidential system of the US establishes a strong President in the White House, who acts as the head of the state. In the Westminster model, the Prime Minister holds the position of pre-eminence. Despite these differences, both models focus on the concentration of power in the political party that has control over the legislature. In some democratic countries of Latin America, power is concentrated in the hands of a single person or party. Examples of such regimes are to be found in Venezuela, Colombia, and Costa Rica. 4 In the presidential systems of Greece and France, the President is elected by the people and power is concentrated in the office of the President. These systems are known as delegate democracies. 5 The presidential system of government frequently includes a bicameral legislature. The passage of any law requires control over the executive, and the upper and lower houses of the legislature. These three entities are not elected at the same time and in the same election, which drastically increases the scope for dissent. 6 Parliamentary democracy is characterized by comparatively better stability. However, development in a country results in people aspiring for greater freedom with regard to expressing dissent. In addition, there is a greater tendency to spread different viewpoints. In the UK these desires have led to a gradual transition of the system of government towards the presidential system. 7 In fact, there is little of the original Westminster model that pertains to the political system prevalent in the UK. It is now quite apparent that the parliamentary system with its stability and authoritarian norms is apt only as far as the developing nations are concerned. With growth among the populace of a nation, it becomes essential to adopt a system of government that replicates a presidential system of governance. 8 The President in a presidential system of governance appoints the members of the Cabinet. In general, the latter are not members of the legislature. The outcome is a true separation of powers and the executive and legislature enjoy independent existence. Thus, the members of the President’s Cabinet serve at the pleasure of the President. This is quite different from the parliamentary system, in which the Prime Minister is usually restricted to a much greater extent to select the members of the Cabinet from the party to which the former belongs. 9 A major difference between the presidential and parliamentary systems of governance is that in the parliamentary system there is a fusion of the powers of the executive and legislature. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party that emerges victorious in the elections, and appoints the different Cabinet Ministers. These Cabinet Ministers are in general, members of the legislative assembly and belong to the ruling party or ruling coalition. 10 In the parliamentary system of government, it is essential to have continued cooperation between the legislature and the executive. In the absence of such cooperation, the government will fall and by elections will have to be conducted. The strongest form of parliamentary democracy is to be found in the Westminster system of the UK. 11 Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This age old aphorism was clearly visible during the positively iniquitous rule of the Bush administration. This administration escalated the war in Iraq despite mounting opposition from the public and Congress. The law was disregarded, morality was discarded and humanity in its most fundamental form was ignored.12 This has been the extent to which the executive of the US overstepped all bounds of decency and justice. The checks and balances supposed to be ever present in the US presidential system proved to be singularly incapable of preventing the unprovoked aggression of the Bush administration. Unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident, and the US has a history of disregarding decency and public opinion in its quest for world dominance. 13 Thus, way back during the Korean War, false propaganda was spread by the US government that South Korea had been invaded by North Korea, in order to intervene in the internal affairs of that country. Subsequently, the US administration ably led by Johnson fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin incident to step up the aggression against Vietnam. The latter nation had not attacked the US, which chose to unleash unbridled terror and violence against them. 14 The pictures of the innumerable napalm attacks against the hapless Vietnamese civilians are truly disturbing and heart rending. The insidious foreign policy of the US administration is now an established fact. In fact, prior to the first invasion in Iraq, the Bush administration had encouraged the Saddam regime to invade and annex Kuwait. 15 Thereafter, the US used this as an excuse to invade Iraq. The son was not to be outdone, and the second Bush administration established a relationship between the 9/11 terrorist attacks of Bin Laden on the US to Saddam Hussein. It also spread propaganda that Iraq had amassed a large number of weapons of mass destruction. Thereafter, true to form, the US invaded Iraq, without any provocation and notwithstanding the protests of the UN. 16 All these incidents go to show that the US is ignoring the democratic wellbeing of the political system by the usurpation of the powers of the other branches of government by the executive. In contrast to the US, the UK upholds the principle of parliamentary supremacy. The situation, with the imposition of certain riders, is the same in Canada. This important principle relates to the power of Parliament to enact laws in accordance with the restrictions enjoined by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the constitutional segregation of powers.17 In effect, this principle clearly connotes the supremacy of Parliament over the executive wing of the government. This supremacy is chiefly achieved by means of rendering the Prime Minister and Cabinet accountable to Parliament. It is indispensable for the Prime Minister to retain the confidence of Parliament. Furthermore, the executive is obliged to implement the laws that have been passed by both Houses of the Canadian Parliament.18 The Cabinet constitutes the primary institution of responsible government. It is composed of members of Parliament, is accountable to Parliament and brings about the recognition of the supremacy of Parliament in government. In practice, the Cabinet brings about an amalgamation of the executive and the legislature. Control over this combined entity is vested in the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. 19 As is evident, in Canada, the Prime Minister and Cabinet determine what laws are to be enacted, repealed or modified. Moreover, the Prime Minister constitutes the Cabinet, which implies that he controls the latter. In addition, as the leader of the party with the largest number of members in Parliament, the Prime Minister effectively controls the House of Commons. Furthermore, the very life of Parliament is determined by the Prime Minister, as it is well within his powers to recommend dissolution of Parliament to the Governor General. 20 Parliamentary government can be understood as a specific arrangement of related institutions. As a consequence, parliamentary government denotes an arrangement of institutions that render the executive accountable by means of a confidence correlation with a parliamentary majority.21 This provides the simplistic description that parliamentary government describes a system of governance distinguished by certain specific characteristics. The latter include a system in which the Prime Minister and Cabinet are answerable to the members of Parliament for their actions. In addition, this system provides for the removal of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet by a majority of the members of Parliament. Such removal is effected either by an ordinary or constructive vote of no confidence. 22 Thus, the system of parliamentary democracy can be construed as a chain of accountability and delegation of authority. This sequence originates from the voters and culminates with those responsible for making policy. At each phase of this structure, authority is delegated to an agent by a principal in whom authority has been originally vested. Such agent has to be conditionally authorized by the principal to act on behalf of the latter. 23 This parliamentary chain is distinguished by the fact that it is indirect as the votes or ultimate principals elect parliamentary representatives. This is the only direct intervention of these principals. Subsequently, the other agents are elected indirectly and their accountability to citizens is also indirect. 24 From the above discussion, it can be understood that parliamentary democracy denotes an uncomplicated system of delegation of power. At every stage of this chain, a single agent is provided with delegated power by a single principal. This is in marked contrast to the presidential system of government, in which voters empower multiple competing agents. Moreover, it is clearly discernible in a parliamentary democracy that the accountability of agents is towards a single principal. This principal needs not be unique or individual. An instance is provided by Cabinet Ministers who are accountable to only the Prime Minister and finally Parliament. The latter controls the jurisdiction of Cabinet Ministers through a single committee. The Cabinet Ministers, in turn, constitute the authority to whom the civil servants in their department are responsible. In a presidential system of government, there can be several principals for agents. Thus, civil servants could be required, in a presidential system of government, to report to the President and the legislative chambers. 25 As such, parliamentary democracy stands to benefit from an indirect chain of command, wherein a single principal delegates authority to just a single agent. In turn, each agent has to be accountable to just a single principal. Moreover, in the parliamentary system of governance, election is limited to the assembly. As a consequence, the executive has to be perforce derived from the assembly. The obligation to ensure the confidence of Parliament connotes that the existence of the executive is totally dependent on the approval of the majority of the members of the assembly.26 Furthermore, it has been frequently observed in parliamentary systems that such dependence is mutual, with the result that the executive has the power to dissolve the assembly and call for mid-term polls, or elections prior to the conclusion of the period prescribed by the constitution. This constitutes a major difference between the presidential and parliamentary systems, in as much as there is a fusion of powers in the parliamentary system.27 In the presidential system of government, there is a clear distinction between the origins of these two branches. The electoral system is different and the chief executive, or President, is elected separately from the assembly. The tenure of the President is for a fixed term. Such elected Presidents wield enormous power over the executive and the process of enacting laws. This constitutes a crucial difference between presidential systems and systems that entail a ceremonial head of state. Such ceremonial entities are not vested with constitutional authority.28 In a parliamentary system of government, the head of state and head of government may not be the same person. Thus, a Prime Minister could head the government, while a monarch could be the head of the state. A system of government under which there are both a Prime Minister and a President is termed a semi-presidential system of government. This applies to countries which have a parliamentary system of government. In these systems, power is vested in the legislature and the Prime Minister. 29 Efficiency of the government and political tolerance differ in each system of government. Under the presidential system of government, the President and the members of legislature are elected separately. Thus, it is possible that the President and those who control the legislature are from different parties.30 Obviously such arrangement could lead to discord and difficulty in achieving the respective objectives. In contrast to this, under the parliamentary system, the Prime Minister belongs to the political party with the majority of members of the legislature. This makes for little if any discord, while formulating policies. Another difference between parliamentary and presidential systems is the ability to remove the head of government from office. 31 The legislature can easily remove the Prime Minister from power in a parliamentary system. Some of the reasons for doing so are disagreement in policy and the Prime Minister’s lack of effective leadership. However, in presidential systems, it is difficult to remove the President from power by the legislature, unless the President stands accused of a serious crime. 32 Some political systems like those of the hereditary monarchy in Kuwait and a few of the commonwealth nations will be examined in the sequel. Even though Kuwait is ruled by a hereditary monarch, it is the first nation in the Arab world to have an elected parliament. Kuwait is a constitutional hereditary emirate, in which the Amir is the executive and head of the state. The cabinet requires the approval of the Amir. The legislature is the unicameral National Assembly termed the Majlis al-Umma. It consists of fifty members elected for a four-year tenure. 33 Kuwait is ruled by the al-Sabah family. The emir appoints the Prime Minister and members of the Council of Ministers. It is the first country in the Arab world to have an elected Parliament, and all adult males and females can vote and compete in the elections. 34 In the Commonwealth of Nations, it is the constitution that provides guidance to parliamentary democracy. The contemporary struggle for power, between O’Neill-Namah and Somare-Abal in Papua New Guinea, has discounted this notion to a major extent. This bitter and seemingly never ending commotion has conclusively established that the doctrine of separation of powers has become an object of ridicule in Papua New Guinea.35 In this country, Parliament had been subjected to unprecedented abuse over the years due, in no small measure, to the avarice of the corrupt politicians who have been at the helm of affairs. In addition, the political system had been seriously compromised by regimes related to the principal political leaders. The business community has also contributed significantly to this endemic rot of the political system. In fact, most of the corporate firms have enormously enriched the corrupt politician in return for undue favors.36 Parliamentary democracy in Papua New Guinea has been severely crippled, and its pristine status of yesteryear can be restored only if drastic measures are adopted. Conclusion An examination of the political systems of different countries discloses several drawbacks in most of these countries. Although the US political system appears to be more stable and democratic, due to checks and balances on the three branches of government, via the principle of separation of powers, in reality, these powers overlap each other. In most of the cases, the executive dominates the legislature. This leads to an autocratic system of governance that effectively supplants democratic rule. This work scrutinized various incidents where the US executive had usurped the power of the other branches of government. If the US political system had adhered to the separation of powers in a rigid manner, democracy would have been safeguarded in the system. As such, it can be surmised that despite all these disadvantages, the US system of presidential democracy will function successfully if there is proper and adequate adherence to the principle of separation of powers. Notes Works Cited Albert, Richard. "Presidential Values in Parliamentary Democracies." International Journal of Constitutional Law 8.2 (2010): 207-236. Print. Background Note: Kuwait. 13 March 2012. Web. 27 May 2012. . Carey, J. M. "Presidential Versus Parliamentary Government." Ed. C. Menard and M. M. Shirley. Handbook of New Institutional Economics. Springer, 2005. 91-122. Print. Hendriks, Frank . Vital Democracy: A Theory of Democracy in Action. Oxford University Press, 2010. Print. How Democratic Is the Middle East? 9 September 2005. Web. 27 May 2012. . Keong, J. L. M. Parliamentary or Presidential? 2005. Web. 27 May 2012. . Muller, W. C., T. Bergman, and K. Strom. Parliamentary Democracy: Promise and Problems. Web. 27 May 2012. . "Parliamentary Democracy Must Prevail." Papua New Guinea Post – Courier 19 December 2001. Print: 15. Rieksts, Mark. "Parliamentary Democracy 101." Law Now 34.2 (2009): 1-5. Print. The War in Iraq and American Democracy. 20 January 2007. Web. 27 May 2012. . United Nations Development Programme. Governing Systems and Executive-Legislative Relations (Presidential, Parliamentary and Hybrid Systems). Web. 27 May 2012. . What is the Difference Between a Parliamentary and Presidential System of Government. Web. 27 May 2012. . Read More