Let us write or edit the essay on your topic
"Compere and contrast the presidential and parliamentary institutional structures in Canada and the U.S includes executive, legislature and judiciary"
with a personal 20% discount.
Download file to see previous pages...
Every country in the world operates either a parliamentary system of governance, or a presidential one. In history, these two governance structures can be traced back to the United Kingdom and the United States of America (Antonio, 2007). While the former practices the parliamentary system, the latter is governed by a presidential system. So what are the similarities and differences between the two? We shall first discuss the parliamentary system followed by the presidential system. We shall then highlight their similarities and differences.
The parliamentary system of governance, as earlier mentioned, is a system that has been successfully implemented in the United Kingdom, as well as in some of its former colonies. Historically, under this system, the law was understood to be any word that came from either the King or the queen. Power was vested in either of the two and their word was the law. However, this changed over time. The English Civil War is feted for effecting changes such as the shifting of power from the King or Queen to the Parliament. As such, the royalty position is now ceremonial (Bergman, 2006). So how does this structure of governance operate? Under this system, the Parliament is vested with the power of controlling all the duties, deliberations, and functions of Government. They thus create a system of checks and balances to monitor the functions of Government. Members of Parliament (MPs), who are also representatives of the people, are elected into office by the people. The elected members take up executive functions in government. The Prime Minister, who is the head of government, is entirely dependent on Parliament when making decisions such as the selection of Ministers from the 446 MPs who are elected to Parliament (Antonio, 2007). Ministers are selected based on their loyalty to their respective
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
According to the study 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.
The subject involving the topic which is a better government has been the subject of debates for centuries now by mostly all of countries in the entire world. Several discussions have raised the following issues
In the presidential structure of democracy, for example, the US, the executive and the legislature are independent of each other, although many executive actions are subject to review by the legislature. The difference between these two structures of democracy seems minute, but are they really so in practice?
One of its crucial distinguishing characteristic is the formation of a government, the social contract, in which citizens gave up their rights in favor of this government in exchange for some protection. In return, the government is expected to apply its laws with fairness and equality to every citizen.
Statute as a power of the political leaders is limited by the rule of law. The government itself must act under law: its will is not irresponsible and arbitrary.
In both systems, a central aspect of the pluralization of politics is dispersion of power. "Parliamentary systems are typified by a fusion of powers between the legislative and executive branches.
Though the media has been flooded with news about the elections, the following are five news pieces which deal with various topics.A recent poll conducted by New York Times and CBS News Poll has revealed that the use of bitter and personal remarks against Barrack Obama has backfired strongly for Republican John McCain.
According to the author, Oxford Professor A.V. Dicey set out the fundamental principles of Britain’s unwritten Constitution, and the role of judges within the context of those principles by stating that the indivisibility of Parliamentary power requires that all exercise of Governmental power must be authorized by Parliament.