Presidential versus Parliamentary System - Essay Example

Presidential versus Parliamentary System In this present age of democracy, there are two popular forms of government adapted by most countries around the globe. These are the parliamentary and the presidential systems of government. Although these two forms of government share, advocate, and adhere to the principles of democracy, they vary in methods of legislation, implementation, and adjudication. As exemplified by Mexico, there is a separation of powers in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government in the presidential system. The executive branch is headed by the president who is elected directly by the people via a simple majority of votes. He stays in office as head of government for six years with no re-election. His functions primarily revolve around the implementation of laws, policies, and, development plans for his country. In the parliamentary system adapted by Great Britain, there is a fusion in the three branches of government. The executive branch of Britain is composed of the Queen who is considered the chief of state and the Prime Minister as head of government. The Prime Minister is elected by the members of the legislative branch. He has no definite term of office as the conduct of elections is decided on by Parliament. The legislative branch of government of Mexico has two chambers-the upper (Senate) and the lower (Chamber of Deputies). They have the power to pass laws, ordinance, impose taxes, declare war, and approve the national budget. Some members of the Senate are voted through direct popular vote, some are voted per state. The members of the lower chamber are voted per district based on proportional representation. The legislative branch of Great Britain, called the House of Parliament, is also bicameral-composed of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. This branch serves as the supreme legislative body of Britain and its territories. The House of Lords is largely made up of appointed members, with a small percentage who are voted by hereditary peerage. The members of the House of Commons are elected via popular vote every four or five years. The distinct feature about British Parliament is that they control the executive branch of the government. As opposed to the Legislative branch of government in the presidential system, the executive and legislative branches of government are independent from each other. The judicial branch of government in Mexico is divided into the federal and state systems. It has a Supreme Court of Justice composed of magistrates and auxiliary judges who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the legislature. The judicial branch of Mexico applies Spanish civil law that bases its judgment on the strict adherence to civil code and jurisprudence. The judicial branch of government in the Parliamentary system of Britain is composed of the House of Lords which is the highest court of appeal, the Supreme Courts of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland or the appellate courts, and Scotlands Court of Session and Court of the Justiciary. Law lords are appointed by the Queen from the ranks of the senior judges found in different parts of the UK. Her choices are based on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. The presidential form of government is advantageous in the sense that it is more representative of the will and the choice of the people. The people have a greater affinity to the president and the legislature knowing that they were the ones who put them in power. In the Parliamentary system, the people are more detached from their leaders because they were put into power by those who are already in power-the members of the legislature. In the presidential form of government, people have a chance to change their leaders through regular elections. There is little chance for bad leaders to stay too long in power because of the prescribed terms of office that they have to abide by. In the parliamentary system as exemplified by Britain, regular elections by the people at large seldom occur. Changes in leaders are effected by the House of Lords themselves without the participation of the citizens. The tides of governance depend so much on the will of the Parliament, not on the people. In the Presidential system of government, there are checks and balances that can be used and adapted by each branch in order to avoid possible abuses of power by any of the other branches of government. This is lacking in the Parliamentary system, there cannot be an effective checks and balances when every facet of governance is controlled by the Parliament. It has to be noted though that it is easier to pass legislation in the Parliamentary system of government. There isn’t much interference from the executive branch of government when the legislative branch desires the passage of a law. In the Presidential system, the president has the power to veto legislation. There can be conflicts of interest between these two branches that can tip the balance of power onto either side of the political continuum. Power in the parliamentary system is more evenly spread. There is a lesser possibility that the power of governance is confined to one branch of government. The powers are usually shared between the three branches and the day to day business of governance is easily adapted without much interference from the other branches. In the presidential system, there is a tendency for the executive branch in the form of the president to be the ‘dictator’ of government policy. There may also be instances when the hands of the executive branch may be tied by the legislature through the passage of laws that interfere with the president’s functions. There is great strength that can be drawn in the flexibility of the parliamentary system. Elections are not fixed but may be called anytime by the Parliament. This allows and invites changes and necessary shifts in power to avoid authoritarian rule. For the presidential system, political changes can only be effected via the scheduled regular elections. Both systems of government advocate good governance. They have firmly entrenched and dynamic political systems that can work well under great leaders. But for all the ideal tenets that these systems declare, they can just as easily crumble in the hands of mendacious and ineffective leaders. Read More