System of Government - Essay Example

The system of government is an external expression of the essence of the caused by the structure and the legal status of organs of the government, i.e. the system of government is understood as the special organization of authority characterised by its formal source, that is who possesses authority in the given state. However, some scholars believe, that to this definition it is necessary to add the order of government organs formation and the order of their interaction with the population. Forms of government differ depending on whether the supreme authority in the state belongs to one person, who simultaneously is a symbol of the state, or it is carried out by means of various democratic institutes (representative organs of authority, referenda, etc.). In the view of the aforesaid all the states by the system of government are divided in monarchies and republics. The system of the state government enables to understand: How the supreme organs of the state are created, and what their structure; What are the mutual relations between the supreme and other state bodies; What are relations between the supreme government and the population of the country; In what measure the organization of the supreme bodies of the state allows providing the rights and freedoms of a citizen. In the given essay the republican form of board will be considered. Republic is the system of government, according to which the higher authority in the state belongs to elective bodies: to parliament and to president, which carry out the control over the government, there is also an independent justice and institutions of local governing. The general attributes of the republican system of government are: Existence of individual and collective head of the state; Appointment of the head of the state and other supreme bodies of the government by election for the certain term; Realization of the authority not on the command, and on behalf of people; The legal responsibility of the head of the state in the cases stipulated by the law; Compulsion of decisions made by of supreme power of the state. The republican system of government was generated in the Athenian state. In the process of development of public life it changed, got new features, was more and more filled with the democratic essence. There are some basic versions of republican system of government. Under the form of a state system they are divided on: Parliamentary; Presidential; Mixed (semi-presidential). Parliamentary republic is a version of the modern system of the state government when the supreme role in the organization of the state life belongs to parliament. In such republic the government is formed by parliamentary method from among the deputies belonging to those parties, who have the majority of voices in parliament. The government bears collective responsibility before the parliament. The government remains in power till they possess the majority in parliament. In case of loss of trust of the majority members of parliament the government or retires, or with the help of the head of the state achieves the dissolution of parliament and prescheduled parliamentary elections. As a rule, the head of the state in such republics is selected by the parliament or specially created parliamentary board. Appointment of the head of the state by the parliament is the main kind of the parliamentary control over executive authority. The procedure of election of the head of the state in modern parliamentary republics is not the same. In Italy for example the members of both Houses select the president of republic at their joint session, but thus in elections participate three deputies from each region. In federative states participation of parliament in election of the head of the state, is also divided with representatives of members of federation. So in Germany the president is elected by the federal assembly consisting from members of the Bundestag, and the same number of the persons chosen by landtags on the basis of proportional representation. Elections of the head of the state in parliamentary republic can be carried out on the basis of the general suffrage that is characteristic for Austria where the president is selected for the period of six years. The head of the state in parliamentary republic possesses the following powers: promulgates laws, issues decrees, publishes decrees, appoints the head of the government, is supreme commander in chief of armed forces, etc. The head of the government (the prime minister, chairman of ministerial council, the chancellor) is appointed, as a rule, by the president. It forms the government, which carries out the supreme executive power and responsible for the activity before parliament. The most essential feature of parliamentary republic is that a government is law competent to carry out the government of the state when it enjoys the confidence of parliament. The main function of parliament is legislative activity and the control over executive power. The parliament possesses the important financial powers as it develops and accepts the state budget, defines prospects of development of social and economic development of the country, solves the basic questions of external, including defensive policy. The parliamentary form of republican government represents such structure of the supreme bodies of the government, which really provides democracy of a public life, personal freedom, creates fair conditions of the human co-existence, based on the ground of legality. Among the parliamentary republics are Germany, Italy (under the constitution of 1947), Austria, Switzerland, Iceland, Ireland, India, etc. The following essential features characterize presidential republics: The head of the state, the president, is selected on direct or indirect elections by all citizens and is not only the head of the state, but also the head of executive power; As the head of executive power the president independently forms the government, defining both its structure and concrete appointments. Certainly, it does not mean, that the opinion of parliament is completely ignored: as a rule either the constitution, or tradition stipulate the certain forms of consultations with the legislator concerning the basic appointments. Moreover in some cases these appointments cannot take place without the consent of parliament; Accordingly, the government submits only to the president and opportunities of parliament to influence directly the activity of the government are rather limited; The president possesses the right of deviation of the accepted laws, the right of veto. We shall note, that by present time this right was kept in full (i.e. in the form of the absolute veto, which cannot be overcome by any procedures) only in few countries (for example, in France). In the majority of republics even if on other features they are quite presidential, the veto can be only relative, i.e. if at repeated voting the parliament overcomes its qualified majority of voices the president is obliged to sign the disputable law; The judicial authority is formed with some defining role of executive power, but functions already absolutely irrespective of it. The president appoints judges, but because of specificity of judicial power and because of its special position in system of separation of powers, there are some mechanisms of the agreement of nominees or their approval by legislative power. Besides the professional judicial corporation, as a rule, participates in formation of the judicial corps. It is necessary to state, that the majority of the states have mixed (semi-presidential or semi-parliamentary) systems of government uniting attributes of both forms. It should be mentioned that some political scientists say that presidentialism is not constitutionally stable. According to some political scientists, such as Fred Riggs, presidentialism has fallen into authoritarianism in every country it has been attempted. So let us try to answer the question: are parliamentary systems more stable than presidential systems Juan J. Linz, Seymour Martin Lipset, and Donald L. Horowitz extensively debated the merits of presidentialism and parliamentarism in the fall 1990 issue of the Journal of Democracy. Here we deal with the issue of parties. According to Lijphart (1992), 'the fact that parties must agree to form a government gives parliamentary system an institutionalised mechanism for dealing with a large number of parties, a mechanism lacking in presidential systems. This does not imply that a stable multi-party presidential democracy is impossible but it certainly is more difficult that a two-party presidential democracy or multi-party parliamentary system'. 'The Perils of Presidentialism make the claim that parliamentary systems are 'more conducive to stable democracy' than are presidential systems' (Horowitz, 1990). In comparative study of the world's stable democracies, defined as countries that were continuously democratic from 1977 to 1996 (and had populations greater than 250,000), 30 of the 36 stable democracies had parliamentary systems. The problem of a choice of the system of government is a subject of long discussion in literature. It is possible to allocate three points of view concerning the role of the constitutional systems of government in strengthening democracy. The first one, based on data of comparative statistics and, first of all, on the experience of Latin America, state to that pure presidential systems are capable to lead to a paralysis of power and uncontrollability of the state. Representatives of the second approach not denying basically the ability of parliamentary system to provide better democratic stability, nevertheless consider, that in conditions of a transitive society, in which, as a rule, there is no necessary base for parliamentarism, immediate introduction of the last leads to political destabilization, frequent governmental and parliamentary crises and finally to an establishment of new dictatorship. In such states only the strong, executive power rather independent from parliament (that by definition the presidential authority is), can provide fast and stable promotion of a society on the way of strengthening the democracy. We would share the third point of view, which is represented in the context of the previous polar positions like more moderate. We are sure that it much better to avoid categorical conclusions at estimation of merits and demerits of this or that system of government. Before to condemn or extol any concrete system of government, it is necessary to analyse all set of the institutes operating in this or that country, and also characteristic economic and cultural factors rendering positive or, on the contrary, negative influence on normal functioning of the given system of government. Anyway, parliamentary systems promoted suffocation of democracy in Africa in the same way as it was done by presidential systems in Latin America. References: Horowitz (1990) 'Comparing Democratic Systems', Journal of Democracy, 1, 4 (Fall 1990), pp. 73-79. Clipart, A. (1992) Parliamentary versus Presidential Government. Oxford University Press Linz 'The Perils of Presidentialism', Journal of Democracy, 1, 1, winter 1990, 51-69 Read More