Government Systems - Report Example

A government is "the organization that is the governing ity of a political unit, the ruling power in a political society, and the apparatus through which a governing body functions and exercises authority." Government, with the authority to make laws, to adjudicate disputes, and to issue administrative decisions, and with a monopoly of authorized force where it fails to persuade, is an indispensable means, proximately, to the peace of communal life." (American, 572) Parliamentary System The system which the real executive, the Cabinet or Ministry, is immediately and legally responsible to the legislature or one branch of it (usually the more popular chamber) for its legislative and administrative acts, and immediately or politically responsible to the electorate, while the titular head or nominal executive - The Chief of State - occupies a position of irresponsibility. The features of the Parliamentary system include fusion of powers, two party system, shadow government and the question hour. The parliamentary system as developed and used in Great Britain is more graphically called the Cabinet government. This conveniently describes the fact that the cabinet is usually known as the Government. More completely described, however, the government in this system is composed of the Cabinet, as the executive organ; and the parliament as the legislature. These two bodies do not form separate departments. They are fused together and are dependent upon each other in the performance of the principal governmental functions. The reality of the system is that politics play a dominant role in its actual working. The party leader does not only automatically become the Prime Minister but much legislation happens within the party caucus presided over by the Prime Minister. It is here where debates among the members of the ruling party are common. But once a consensus is developed the result will become the united stand of the majority party in the parliament. So, if there is any debate in Parliament during the discussion of legislative proposals it is only between the ruling Members of Parliament and the Members of the opposition. (Mckay, 291) This Shadow Cabinet or Shadow Minister is the counter part of the government. In debates and during question hour, the Shadow Prime Minister and Ministers are the ones engaged and egged on the Prime Minister and his Ministers. For the Parliamentary System to succeed there must be a strong opposition party. A strong opposition attracts men and women of equal competence, brilliance and expertise. In the event that it wins a majority in the Parliamentary election it is immediately ready to form a government of qualified persons thereby avoiding a lengthy interregnum in the formation and implementation of national policies. For this reason, every opposition party has made it a practice to name their respective ministers even before it smells victory in the polls. These prospective Ministers constitute what is popularly called the Shadow Government which is actually a Government established by the opposition in the Parliament. The question hour is a unique feature of the Parliamentary system. It is an effective tool in scrutinizing proposed measures and past and current acts of the Prime Minister and his Ministers. For all its merits, it is only a useful tool of democracy if there is a well-organized opposition with a Shadow Cabinet, for the questions and the answers are usually between the Prime Minister and his Shadow Cabinet. Among the members of the majority party, their differences are usually and by practice threshed out in a part caucus prior to the session of Parliament. New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy. Although it has no written constitution, the Constitution Act 1986 is the principal formal statement of New Zealand's constitutional structure. Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state and is titled Queen of New Zealand under the Royal Titles Act (1953). She is represented by the Governor-General, currently Anand Satyanand. Presidential System This type of government was not born out of accident or as a result of revolutionary processes. It was a product of the Constitutional Convention of the United States of America held from May to September 1787. For their collective defense, the Original Thirteen states which took arms against the British Empire felt the need to strengthen the loosely constituted Federation which was primarily devised as expediency for the successful prosecution of the war of independence. The framers of the United States Constitution wanted to give solidarity and permanence to the Union. (Adler, 363) Specifically, the Presidential system was the result of the Great Compromise offered by the delegates from Connecticut which sought to balance "too much democracy with too much aristocracy". The objective of the delegates was to establish a framework for government that would protect property against revolutionary expropriation and secure liberty from a potentially tyrannical government. From a troubled beginning and after undergoing a long period of uncertainty and a traumatic experience during the destructive Civil War of 1861, the system gradually became a stunning success. The system made America strong and enhanced her prestige as a future World Power - as she indeed became since World War I. The features of the Presidential system are separation of powers and the principle of Constitutional Check and Balances. The separation of powers is the vital feature of the system. This doctrine envisioned the three major branches of the government re legislature, executive and judiciary. This was constituted to prevent the concentration of authority in one person or group of persons that might lead to an irreversible error or abuse in its exercise to the detriment of a republican institution. To achieve these purposes, the legislative is generally to the enactment of laws and may not enforce them or apply them; the executive to the enforcement of laws and may not enact or apply them; and the judiciary to the application of laws and may not enact or enforce them. This separation of power is not absolute. In the actual operation of the three branches of the government, they are interdependent. For the President, being the Chief Executive, could not enter into or conclude treaties without the consent of the Senate; the President could not also appoint the members of the inferior courts without the consent of the Commission on Appointments; and the same, the President could not pardon or grant amnesty to convicted criminals and could also participate in the making of laws by virtue of his veto power. Therefore, in practice, there is no absolute separation of powers. It is only in principle that there is absolutism. The blending of powers is the best term to explain their interdependence. (Mckay 284) What makes the separation of powers especially workable is the corollary doctrine of the Constitutional Check and Balances. BY means of which one department is allowed to resist encroachment upon its prerogatives or to rectify mistakes or excesses committed by the other departments. The exercise of this authority is not itself an arrogant inasmuch as it is the Constitution that provides for this system of counteraction. The theory is that the ends of the government are better achieve through the exercise by its agencies only of the powers assigned to them, subject to reversal in proper cases by those constitutionally organized. The Philippines has a presidential, unitary (with some modification; there is one autonomous region largely free from the national government) form of government, where the President functions as both head of state and head of government, and is commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The president is elected by popular vote to a single six-year term, during which time she or he appoints and presides over the cabinet. The bicameral Congress is composed of a Senate, serving as the upper house whose members are elected nationally to a six-year term, and a House of Representatives serving as the lower house whose members are elected to a three-year term and are elected from both legislative districts and through sectoral representation. Semi-presidential The semi-presidential system is a system of government in which a prime minister and a president are both active participants in the day-to-day administration of the state. It differs from a parliamentary republic in that it has a popularly elected Head of State who is more than a purely ceremonial figurehead. It differs from the presidential system in that the cabinet, although named by the president, is responsible to the legislature, which may force the cabinet to resign through a motion of no confidence. How the powers are divided between president and prime minister can vary greatly between countries. In France, for example, the president is responsible for foreign policy and the prime minister for domestic policy. In this case, the division of powers between the prime minister and the president is not explicitly stated in the constitution, but has evolved as a political convention. In Finland, by contrast, this particular aspect of the separation of powers is explicitly stated in the constitution: "foreign policy is led by the president in cooperation with the cabinet". Semi-presidential systems sometimes experience periods of cohabitation, in which the prime minister and president are elected separately, and often from rival parties. This can create an effective system of checks and balances or a period of bitter and tense stonewalling, depending on the attitudes of the two leaders, the ideologies of their parties, or the demands of their constituencies. As a typical example, Sri Lankan politics for several years witnessed a bitter struggle between the President and the Prime Minister, belonging to different parties and elected separately, over the negotiations with the LTTE to resolve the longstanding civil war. Semi-presidentialism is more closely related to presidential systems than parliamentary systems. The primary similarity is that both have a directly elected President (or at least a president NOT selected by the legislature). The fundamental difference is that executive power is divided "in half" under semi-presidentialism between the elected publicly selected President and the Prime Minister selected by the legislature. (Adler, 365) This sharing of executive power is one of the key characteristics of the semi-presidential system, what Sartori refers to a "dual authority structure a diarchy between a president who is head of state, and a prime minister who heads the government The Semi-Presidential system has potentially two forms (Schulze, 1994) A powerful president when there is a unified majority (legislative majority is of the same party or supportive of the President). The Prime Minister becomes secondary to the President in all legislative and diplomatic arenas. A weakened president when the two majorities are of divergent or opposing parties. The prime minister takes on a primary role in most legislative arenas (generally excepting foreign policy) Sartori claims that by being able to oscillate between these two forms the semi presidential system is able to avoid the possible shortfalls of the pure presidential systems. The semi-presidential system (like the presidential and parliamentary) requires well-developed ("fit") political parties. This assumes that internal party divisions will not prevent the president and prime minister from working effectively together. Semi-presidentialsm does not resolve problems of polarized pluralism or a fractured political party system (and inability to reach decisions or form stable coalitions within the legislature). REFERENCES: Adler, Mortimer J. (1996). The Common Sense of Politics. Fordham University Press, New York, pp. 363-366 American Heritage dictionary of the English language, 4th edition, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, pp. 572, 770. Christian, David (2004). Maps of Time. University of California Press. Dietz, Mary G. (1990). Thomas Hobbes & Political Theory. University Press of Kansas. McKay, John P.; Bennett D. Hill, John Buckler (1996). A History of World Societies. Houghton Mifflin Company, pp. 284-296 Schulze, Hagen (1994). States, Nations and Nationalism. Blackwell Publishers Inc. Read More