The Presidential and Parliamentary Structures - Essay Example

A comparative study of the Presidential and Parliamentary structures al Affiliation A comparative study of the Presidential and Parliamentary structures The concept of governance is arguably one of the most important the world over. It is the pivotal point that enables the center of any form of human organization to hold. Every country in the world today is governed by a governance system. The two systems include the presidential and parliamentary system. In a bid to understand these two systems, this essay will compare and contrast the two structures of governance. It will also explore the variances that exist in the relationship between the executive, legislature, and the judiciary in the two systems. Finally, it will discuss the Canadian governance system and the changes that have occurred since the constitutional changes of the year 1982. 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 parties. This system of governance is practiced in many countries of the world, besides the UK, especially those that were its former colonies. These include India, Pakistan, Germany, Iraq, Italy, Israel, and New Zealand. The latter is still governed by a model of the parliamentary system known as the Westminster model. The Presidential system as a governance structure has been widely praised for its clear separation of power. Countries that have adopted this system have a constitution in place that clearly demarcates the powers of the 3 arms of government that include the Judiciary or Judicature, the Legislature or Parliament, and the Executive (Krieger, 2012). In the Presidential system, the president who is also the head of Government is directly elected into office by the people. This makes him directly answerable to the people. In this system, each arm of government enjoys autonomy in the execution of their functions. The Legislature is the law making entity for this form of governance, the Executive implements or executes, while the Judiciary enforces the laws. The Judicature is also tasked with ensuring that neither of the two other arms of Government becomes too powerful. It ensures that checks and balances are in place. There are numerous similarities and differences between the Presidential and Parliamentary governance structures. The two systems are similar in a number of ways. Firstly, the head of government in each system is held accountable by someone for his actions or inactions. In the Presidential system, the President, who is the head of government, is accountable to the people of the country. In the Parliamentary system, the head of government who is the Prime Minister is held to accountability by the Members of Parliament. The MPs are also answerable to voters. Thus, in both systems, persons in elective office are eventually accountable to the voters (Antonio, 2007). Secondly, they both have a government that is comprised of the Executive, the Judicature, and the Legislature although how these arms operate under the two systems varies. The differences between these two structures are more pronounced than the similarities. Firstly, whereas the head of government in a parliamentary system is the Prime Minister, the President is the head of a presidential system. The head of government is elected by the Members of Parliament in a parliamentary system, and is usually a different person from the head of state. However, in a presidential system, the same person elected into office by the people holds both capacities, as head of government and as head of state. Secondly, in the parliamentary system, the powers of the Prime Minister to select ministers who will constitute his or her government are dependent on the Members of Parliament. The legislature, therefore, exerts some form of influence in the selection process (Bergman, 2006). The presidential system is different. The President acts independently and is not dependent on the legislature. In the selection process under the Presidential system, the President is at liberty to choose ministers outside parliament. The cabinet ministers are mostly professionals and technocrats drawn from government and professional bodies unlike in the parliamentary system where the ministers are mostly seasoned politicians. The third difference between the two governance structures arises from the second discussed above. In the parliamentary system of government, ministers who are selected by the Prime Minister to form the government are mostly professional politicians who do not have the knowledge and experience to run the ministries they are allocated. Some of the ministers, other than lacking the expertise, are illiterate having little or no educational background at all. They therefore depend on a bureaucratic process of running government ministries whereby they rely on the technocrat civil servants under them for direction (Krieger, 2012). They are therefore incapable of providing sound leadership. In the presidential system, however, the cabinet ministers are carefully selected based on their educational background, their experiences, and the requisite expertise necessary to effectively run a government ministry. The members of cabinet are mostly selected from professional bodies. For instance, the President may select his health cabinet minister from a professional body of doctors. Owing to the wealth of knowledge and expertise the ministers possess, effective leadership is thus provided in the ministries they are allocated. Lastly, the Parliamentary system differs from the Presidential system because it allows for defection of members of parliament from one political party to another. Members of the legislature will mostly defect to other parties if their parties fail to say pass a motion. The resultant effects of defection include corruption, casteism, favoritism, and the formation of secessionist groups that always work against the government (Bergman, 2006). In the Presidential system, cases of defection are unheard of. The two governance structures have visible similarities and differences as shown in the comparative analysis above. Each system has an executive, a legislature, and a Judiciary. It is important to note that the relationship between the three arms of government differ significantly in the two systems. In the Presidential system, there is a clear separation of power such that each arm acts independent of the other. The legislature formulates the laws; the executive is tasked with the execution of those laws, while the Judiciary is responsible for enforcing the laws. The executive, under the leadership of the President, also acts to provide checks and balances to ensure that Parliament does not become powerful. The Legislature also ensures the same of the executive. The Judiciary plays the oversight role of ensuring that neither the legislature nor the executive exceeds the powers vested in them by the constitution (Krieger, 2012). In the Parliamentary system, on the other hand, the relationship between the three is very different. Members of Parliament who constitute the legislature have power to control the executive and Judiciary as well. This is because the Prime Minister, who chooses his or her executive ministers from Parliament, is also selected by the legislature. Judges and magistrates who constitute the Judiciary are also appointed by the PM. In a situation whereby the PM fails to meet the expectations of the legislature, he is pushed out of government. This thus affects the executive and judiciary, as fresh elections have to be held (Krieger, 2012). Canada, a former colony of the United Kingdom, adopted the Parliamentary system of government upon gaining independence. The Canadian system, until 1982, was therefore that of the Parliamentary system practiced in the United Kingdom (Forsey, 2003). However, a desire to alter the Canadian Constitution and the governance system led to amendments of the constitution. In the year 1982, specifically 17 April 1982, the Constitutional Act was adopted. The Act is just an arm of the Constitution of Canada and is composed of seven additional parts. The first part is the Charter of Right and Freedom (Forsey, 2003). The constitutional changes of 1982 brought about differences in the way of doing things. The charter of Right and Freedom came into existence and was entrenched into the constitution. The charter gave Canadian citizens a number of fundamental rights and freedoms such as the right to vote, the right to life, the right to security, the freedom of speech, peaceful congregation, association, and expression of opinion. The charter gave Canadians the assurance that their rights and freedoms were safeguarded. This is because it was almost impossible to amend the entrenched charter. The charter also safeguarded women’s equality rights, as well as those of minority groups such as persons living with disability, gays and lesbians (Contiades, 2013). The Canadian system, today, has thus moved very close to the American one over time. This is because the American one is also very particular about the rights and freedoms of its citizens, especially the minority groups. The constitutional changes also greatly affected the role of the Judiciary. The courts, which constitute the judicial system, were given greater mandate and its judges can now make rulings disregarding legislations that are against the provisions outlined in the charter (Contiades, 2013). The 1982 changes did improve the quality of Canadian democracy. This is because with the new changes, the rights and freedoms of citizens and those of minority groups were guaranteed and safeguarded owing to the difficulty of amending the entrenched charter. In conclusion, every country in the world practices either of the two governance structures. These are the parliamentary and presidential systems. The Prime Minister is the head of government in the parliamentary system, selects ministers from the pool of members of Parliament. The MPs have powers over the government he forms. In the presidential system, the President is the head of government as well as the head of state who is elected by the people. The President solely picks his team of ministers and is not answerable to the legislature as there is a clear separation of powers. 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 has changed significantly in recent times. The Presidential system as a governance structure has been widely praised for its clear separation of power. Countries that have adopted this system have a constitution in place that clearly demarcates the powers of the 3 arms of government including the Judiciary or Judicature, the Legislature or Parliament, and the Executive. The constitutional changes of 1982 in Canada brought about changes in the human rights and freedoms of Canadians as well as in the judicial system. Courts were given more mandates while the rights and freedoms of citizens became more safeguarded. As a result, the quality of Canadian democracy has improved, and the Canadian system has moved closer to the American one over time. References Antonio, J. (2007). Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, and Democracy. London: Cambridge University Press Bergman, T. (2006). Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies. London: Oxford University Press Contiades, X. (2013). Engineering Constitutional Change: A Comparative Perspective on Europe, Canada and the USA. New York: Routledge Forsey, A. (2003). How Canadians Govern Themselves. Ontario: Library of Parliament Krieger, J. (2012). Introduction to Comparative Politics. California: Cengage Learning Read More