Parliamentary System VS Presidential System - Essay Example

? Parliamentary System VS Presidential System Parliamentary System VS Presidential System Democratic governments are those that permit the nation's citizens to manage their government either directly or through elected representatives. This is opposed to authoritarian governments that limit or prohibit the direct participation of its citizens. Two of the most popular types of democratic governments are the presidential and parliamentary systems (Parliamentary Versus Presidential Governments, 2011) Different types of political systems prevailing in the current world. Broadly speaking, based on the nature of functioning the entire political systems in the world can be classified into tow; democratic systems and totalitarian systems. Communism in China and some of the autocratic Islamic administrations in countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE etc are examples of totalitarian administrations. On the other hand, in countries like America, Canada, UK, India etc; democratic administrations are functioning even though these administrations differ somewhat in its core areas of functioning. Since the fall of Soviet Union and the subsequent fall of communist regimes in Easter Europe, democracy is gaining prominence in world politics. Parliamentary system and presidential system are the two major categories under the democratic political system. Judiciary, Parliament and Executive are the three major pillars upon which a democratic political system works. The nature of functioning of these three pillars would be different in parliamentary and presidential political systems. Generally speaking, parliamentary governments are defined by an absence of clear separation between two key branches of government: the legislative branch, which is responsible for enacting laws, and the executive branch, which is responsible for implementing laws. Instead, in parliamentary governments, the executive branch is “fused with” and “dependent upon” the legislative branch (Makarenko, 2007) On the other hand, a presidential system of government functions in a slightly different manner. In this system of government, the executive branch presides separately from the legislature. In other words, legislature and executive functions independently in presidential system whereas in parliamentary system, legislature and executive cannot function independently. There are many other differences between parliamentary system and presidential system. Canada, India, etc are some of the countries in which parliamentary democracy prevails whereas in America presidential system of democracy is in operation. This paper compares the parliamentary system and presidential system taking Canada and America as examples. Differences between parliamentary system and presidential system In a parliamentary system, government cannot function against the will of parliament. Both the prime minister and his cabinet are accountable to parliament. They cannot function independently or without seeking the opinion of the parliament, while taking decisions and formulating policies. All the governmental policies should be presented and discussed in the parliament comprehensively before the implementation stage. Governments in parliamentary system cannot implement any policies without the approval of the parliament. In most of the cases, parliament approves all the bills presented since the ruling government have majority in the parliament. In short, prime minister and his/her cabinet are accountable to the parliament in parliamentary democracy. On the other hand in countries like America where presidential system prevails, president enjoys slightly more power over the parliament or congress. American president has the authority to veto any of the decisions taken by the Congress, even though in most of the cases, the president functions in line with the decisions taken by the Congress. Since countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc were British colonies earlier; the governments in these countries are functioning slightly differently even though parliamentary democracy prevails in these countries. “Canada’s parliamentary system is referred to as a “Westminster Model.” The Westminster parliamentary model is distinctive in several ways. First, most Westminster parliaments include a monarch; that is, a king or queen who represents the national sovereign” (Makarenko, 2007). The monarch has not much power over the government or parliament, since it is only a celebrated post rather than a functional post. In other words, the post of monarch is only a symbolic figure or constitutional requirement in Canada. A governor general acts on behalf of the monarch in Canada. Before a legislation becomes a law, the monarch or the governor general should give formal approval to it. In most of the cases, the monarch may sign all the bills passed by the parliament in Canada since he/she has only limited authority over the government or parliament. In India like parliamentary democratic countries, the post of monarch does not exist even though India was a colony of Britain earlier. In America like countries where presidential system prevails, the concept of monarch is indigestible. Another major feature of modern Westminster model of parliamentary democracy is the two divisions of parliament; lower house and upper house. Lower house normally consists of elected members whereas upper house consists of appointed or nominated members. In order to make a law, the legislation should be approved both by the upper and lower houses. On the other hand in America, only the congress is functioning as the law making body. All the congress members are elected by the public using a voting system in which all the American citizen over the age of eighteen will get the opportunity to elect their representative in the congress. Plurality voting system is used both in America and Canada even though both countries have different political systems. Plurality voting system is a voting system in which only the candidate who got the majority of the public vote will win. It is a single winner voting system. Parliamentary government is always democratic although a presidential system is never parliamentary. Within the parliamentary system, both the legislature and the chief executive must be in agreement on policy, and if they aren’t, they must work at it until they are. A British or Canadian prime minister is always a member of parliament but in a presidential system, the chief executive of a presidency as well as all members of the executive branch of government, except the vice president, cannot be members of Congress (What is the Difference Between a Parliamentary and Presidential System of Government?, 2011). In presidential system, president is elected separately. On the other hand in parliamentary system, the leader of the party which got majority in the parliament election will become the prime minister. In other words, in presidential system, voters get direct opportunity to decide their president whereas in parliamentary system voters will not get such direct involvement in the selection of the prime minister. Prime ministers in the parliamentary system are elected by the parliament members of the party which got majority in the parliament election. In presidential system, president decides the members of the government whereas in parliamentary system, prime minister decides the members of his cabinet after consultation with his party leaders. One major difference between a parliamentary system and a presidential form of government concerns the elections process. In a presidential government, the president and members of Congress are chosen in separate elections while in a parliamentary process, one size fits all, so to speak. Also in a parliamentary system the parliament can vote a governing body out of office, while the United States Congress, except in extreme cases of impeachment, cannot. Indirectly, this signifies a weak position for the chief executive in a presidential system of government. The president is unable to dissolve government and order a new election, which a British or Canadian Prime Minister is well within his or her rights to do (What is the Difference Between a Parliamentary and Presidential System of Government?, 2011) American presidential election often raises many controversies because of the controversial manner in which the president is being elected. In some cases, even if the contestant gets majority of the popular votes, he may taste defeat if he fails to get enough Electoral votes. American voters are not voting directly to the presidential candidate. They are voting to elect the representatives of Electoral College. These Electoral College members are supposed to cast their votes to their own party leader who is contesting in the presidential elections. However, since the voting is taking place through secret ballot, Electoral College members can cast their vote even against their own party’s candidate. In America 538 electoral votes are there and in order to win presidential election, the candidate should win at least 270 Electoral College votes. In short, even if a presidential candidate wins majority of the popular votes, it is not necessary that he may wins the elections. In American presidential election history, three times a person with less number of popular votes has won the election. The most recent example happened in 2000. In 2000 there were a total of 538 electoral votes available with 270 needed to win. Republican George W. Bush, with 50,456,002 popular votes won 271 electoral votes. His Democratic opponent, Al Gore, won the popular vote with 50,999,897 votes, but won only 266 electoral votes. Bush was elected president (Longley, 2011) In parliamentary system, such controversies are not there. The election process in parliamentary system is quiet simple. Representatives of the lower house will be elected directly by the public and these representatives will elect their prime minister. One of the major criticisms labeled against parliamentary system is the instability of the government. If the government fails to achieve the vote of confidence of the parliament, it should be resigned. In other words, no governments in parliamentary system can make sure that it may complete its tenure. If the government functions against the will of the public, it may fail to achieve the vote confidence in the parliament. On the other hand, if the government functions in accordance with the interests of the people, it can continue till the end of its tenure. Unlike the presidential system, parliamentary consociation democracies provide for a focused and representative head of government, and although history may have secured the American presidency as more stable, we can find examples of stable parliamentary democracies that also provide for fair, proportional selection, flexibility of tenure of the executive in term of his or her relation to public opinion, and an efficient chief of government and politics (Crawford, 2001) In parliamentary system, even though the government has a fixed term, all depends on its majority in the parliament. In other words, the government can continue only until it enjoys the majority. On the other hand, in presidential system, president has no such worries. He/she can have a fixed term in the office. In America, president can continue in his office for four years after his election. Moreover, only two consecutive terms are allowed to the president. In other words, an American president can continue in the office only for one more term if he is elected in the election. On the other hand, in parliamentary system, prime minister can continue as many years in his office if his party wins the elections continuously and select him as the leader. Even though American president normally faces no threats during his presidential term, in some unusual cases, he may face impeachment. For example, former American president Bill Clinton faced impeachment because of his alleged illegal affair with a female white house employee, Monica Lewinsky. In both presidential and parliamentary systems, the chief executive can be removed from office by the legislature. Parliamentary systems use a "?vote of no confidence' where a majority of parliament members vote to remove the Prime Minister from office. A new election is then called. In presidential systems, a similar process is used where legislators vote to impeach the President from office (Parliamentary Versus Presidential Governments, 2011). The prime minister and his cabinet cannot function against the will of the parliament in parliamentary system of politics. In other words, a government in parliamentary system is always accountable to the legislative branch. On the other hand same thing cannot be said about the presidential system. For example, the public support for Iraq war or war on terror is getting decreased day by day. Many of the public polls or surveys clearly stated that majority of the Americans oppose the current war on terror. However, the American president and the government are continuing this war since it is not accountable to the legislative body. Such things will never happen in countries like Canada where parliamentary democracy exist. In Canada’s parliamentary system, the interrelationship between the legislative and executive branches is expressed in several ways. First, key members of the executive, such as the Prime Minister and Cabinet, are usually drawn directly from the legislative branch. Second, and more importantly, the executive branch is completely dependent upon the legislative branch for its authority (Macarenko, 2007) It should be noted that the judiciary functions independently both in parliamentary and presidential systems. The aim of democracy is to provide justice to all irrespective of which party or which system of politics is in power. It is difficult for the judiciary to ensure justice to all if it is controlled by the legislative body. The success and failures of democracy depends on the strength of judiciary in a country. In democratic countries where judiciary holds little power, injustices in different forms can occur. For example, Pakistan is believed to be a democratic country in which parliamentary democracy exists. However, judiciary holds little power in Pakistan and therefore stories about different types of injustices taking place in Pakistan quiet regularly. On the other hand, India is a country in which judiciary functions independently. It should be noted that some of the former ministers of the current administration are in prison now because of corruption charges. Kuncheria and Devidutta Tripathy reported for Reuters (Sat Apr 2, 2011) that “The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) charged former telecoms minister Andimuthu Raja, in a multi-billion dollar telecoms licensing corruption scandal that has rocked the government and business establishments” (Kuncheria and Tripathy, 2011). Such things will never happen in countries where judiciary functions under the control of legislative body or the government. In presidential system, president decides the cabinet members and other governmental posts including executive, legislative and judiciary branches. In America, president appoints all the critical or top level employees of the government after the consultation with Congress. Even though the president holds the authority to fire any of the governmental employees, he cannot take any actions upon the members of the judiciary. In parliamentary system also, judiciary functions independently and the government has not much power over it. In other words, judiciary holds significant power both in parliamentary and presidential systems. Conclusions Both parliamentary system and presidential system has its own merits and demerits. Since both parliamentary system and presidential system are the subcategories of democracy, judiciary is functioning independently in both in order to ensure justice to all. Parliamentary system cannot function against the will of the public whereas in presidential system the government can function even against the will of the public. President holds veto power in presidential system and therefore in certain cases, he/she can function against the will of the Congress or the legislative body. A prime minister and his/her cabinet can never function against the will of the public since it always needs the support of the parliament to stay in power. In short, parliamentary system seems to be better than the presidential system since it operates more closely with the people and safeguard the interests of the people. References 1. Crawford W. D. (2001) Parliamentary versus Presidential Government, Retrieved from http://prinzwilhelm.netfirms.com/works/osu/parliamentary.htm 2. Kuncheria and Tripathy D. (2011). Q+A - What is the 2G spectrum scandal all about? Reuters. (Sat Apr 2, 2011). Retrieved from http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/04/02/idINIndia-56074020110402 3. Longley R. (2011). The Electoral College System: How to Lose But Win an Election Retrieved from http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/electcollege_2.htm 4. Makarenko J. (2007). Parliamentary Government in Canada: Basic Organization and Practices. Retrieved from http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/parliamentary-government-canada-basic-organization-and-practices 5. Parliamentary Versus Presidential Governments(2011). Retrieved from http://www.essortment.com/parliamentary-versus-presidential-governments-60835.html 6. What is the Difference Between a Parliamentary and Presidential System of Government? (2011). Retrieved from http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-a-parliamentary-and-presidential-system-of-government.htm Read More