Parliamentary Vs Presidential System
 

[B]Q. [/B] [B][I]Examine in detail the principal advantages and disadvantages of parliamentary over presidentail form of government.[/I][/B]




[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][B][U][CENTER]Parliamentary System of the Government [/CENTER][/U][/B][/COLOR]

Parliamentarism is the most widely adopted system of government, and it seems appropriate to refer to British Parliamentary experience in particular because it is the British system which has provided an example for a great many other countries.Great Britain is regarded as mother country of the parliamentary executive. A parliamentary system, or parliamentarism,is distinguished by the head of government being dependent on the direct or indirect support of the parliament, often expressed through a vote of confidence. Hence, there is no clear cut separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches of government. Parliamentary systems usually have a clear differentiation between the head of government and the head of state.

The term parliamentary system does not mean that a country is ruled by different parties in coalition with each other. Such multi-party arrangements are usually the product of a voting system known as proportional representation. The executive is typically a cabinet, and headed by a prime minister who is considered the head of government. The prime minister and the ministers of the cabinet typically have their background in the parliament and may remain members therof while serving in cabinet. The leader of the leading party, or group of parties, in the parliament is often appointed as the prime minister.

In many countries, the cabinet, or single member therof, can be removed by the parliament through the vote of confidence. In addition, the executive often can dissolve the parliament and call extra ordinary elections. The parliamentary executive is most effective when supported by a stable majority, which is most likely to be found in countries having a strong two party system. Many countries that have instituted the cabinet system have been hampered in their operation by their multiparty systems, which have created indecisive and unstable cabinets.

Many countries have chosen the parliamentary system in preference to the presidential system, which they feared might become dictatorial; yet their failure to operate the cabinet system effectively has in many instances led, precisely to dictatorship. In most parliamentary systems, the head of state is primarily a ceremonial position, often a monarch or president, retaining duties that aren´t politically divisive, such as appointment of civil service.

In many parliamentary systems, the head if state may have reserve power which is usable in a crisis. In most cases however, such powers are (either by convention or by constitutional rule) only exercised upon the advice and approval of the head the government. The secret of the successful functioning of parliamentary democracy is a developed party system. "The purpose of the party in parliament, "says W. Ivor Jenings, "is to support the government in carrying out the party policy; or, if the party in opposition, criticize the government in so far as its fail to carry out the policy of the party in opposition .

The parliament is attempting to ensure ever-increasing levels of accountability of the government, through an elaborate committee system. It already has to its credit creation of a regime of laws to provide equity and social justice to the people. The Parliament, and under its lead, the state legislatures have passed legislation to secure for the citizens_ men and women equally adequate means of livelihood; equal pay for equal work; protection against abuse and exploitation of workers´ economic necessity; and the protection of their health and strength as also of children of tender age and youth, against exploitation and moral and material abandonment. A parliamentary government, through directly responsible to the assembly, is not indirectly responsible to the electorate. The government as a whole is not directly elected by the voters but is appointed indirectly amongst the representatives whom they elect to the assembly.



[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][CENTER][B][U]Presidential System of Government[/U][/B][/CENTER][/COLOR]

The term ´Presidential´ is chosen to indicate a system wherein the offices of the head of the government and head of state are combined in a single man__ the President. The entire executive power is vested in the President and all government action is his responsibility. The presidential system provides for a Chief Executive who is elected for a definite term of office, who holds a wide public mandate as a result of his election, and who is largely independent of the legislative branch for the conduct of his administration. His formal powers are defined in a documentary constitution. Because he is both Chief of State and political leader of the government, his prestige and authority are doubly enhanced.

"He is assisted by a Cabinet, an informal group without legal sanction. Its personnel are determined by the President and exercise such powers as he chooses to vest in it. It may be dissolved when the President wishes" . The President, unlike Parliamentary government, is not responsible to the Parliament, but to the Constitution. It is the Assembly which holds the President ultimately responsible to the Constitution by impeachment process. Though President may not be dependent on Assembly for his political survival, but he is dependent on its good will, for the furtherance of his policies .



[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][CENTER][U][B]Comparison of Parliamentary & Presidential Government Form[/B][/U][/CENTER][/COLOR]

The first distinction to be made is that, in parliamentary governments, the head of the government__for whom there are various different official titles such as prime minister, premier, chancellor and his or her cabinet are dependent upon the confidence of the legislature and can be dismissed from the office by a legislative vote of ´no confidence´ or censure.

In presidential forms of government, President is elected for a fixed, constitutionally prescribed term and in normal circumstances cannot be forced to resign by the legislature.

Prime Minister is elected by the legislature.

President is popularly elected, either directly or via an electoral college.

Parliamentary systems have collective or collegial executives.

Presidential systems have one person, non collegial executives.

The prime minister´s position in the cabinet can vary from pre-eminence to

virtual equality with the other ministers, but there is always a relatively

high degree of collegiality in decision making.

The members of presidential cabinets are mere advisers and subordinates of the president.

In parliamentary systems, political parties enjoy strong position.

Political parties have less of a role (no party discipline) in presidential system.



[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][CENTER][U][B]Advantages of Parliamentary System[/B][/U][/CENTER][/COLOR]

In general, the majority of the world´s "established" democracies use parliamentary systems. Parliamentary system has proved most successful in countries having developed two-party system .Parliamentary system of the government has placed more and more emphasis on the power of Parliament. The main emphasis is on the centre of the power. Parliament becomes the main focus and the institution Prime Minister has been getting more and more importance. Cabinets in Parliamentary System are usually drawn from members of the elected legislature; parliamentary government enables the inclusion of all political elements represented in the legislature including minorities in the executive. Cabinet comprising a coalition of several different parties are a typical feature of many well-established parliamentary democracies. In most government the parliamentary system can change on the floor of the legislature without resource to a general election, advocates of Parliamentarism point to its flexibility and capacity to adopt to changing circumstances as a strong benefit

By making the executive dependent, at least in theory upon the confidence of the legislature parliamentary system are said to foster greater accountability on the part of the government of the day towards the people´s representative. Proponent argues that this means that there is not only greater public control over the policy-making process, but also greater transparency in the way decisions are made.



[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][CENTER][U][B]Advantages of Presidential System
[/B][/U][/CENTER][/COLOR]
In presidential government, executive stability is based on the president´s fixed term of office. It contrasts with the executive instability that may result in a parliamentary system from the frequent use of the legislature´s power to upset cabinets by vote of ´no confidence´ or, without any formal ´no confidence´ motion being adopted, as a result of the cabinet´s loss of majority support in the legislature.

The office of the president can be held directly accountable for decision taken because, in contrast to the parliamentary system, the chief executive is directly chosen by popular vote. It is thus easier for the electorate to reward or retrospectively punish a president (by voting him or her out of office) than is the case with parliamentary system.

In formation of his cabinet, the choice would not be limited to the members of Parliament. He may choose persons of outstanding competence and intellectual integrity help him in administration of the country. The country may have benefit of the persons of integrity who may not be interested in election due to its curruptionist nature.

The Presidential system also offers the cabinet ministers to devote their full time and full energy in the service of the nation, instead of wasting their time and energy in endless politicking. Presidential system will cure the cancer of defection which ha snow become the property of legislators. The expertise of defection and desertions on the part of the legislators motivated by thurst for power and hunger for office, will disappeared some sort of cleaning in political life would be obvious as a result.



[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][U][CENTER][B]Disadvantages of Parliamentary System[/B][/CENTER][/U][/COLOR]

Parliamentary systems are inherently less accountable than Presidential once, as responsibility for decision is taken by the collective cabinet rather than a single figure. This is especially problematic when diver coalition from the executive, as it becomes increasingly difficult for electors to establish who is –responsible for a particular decision and make a retrospective judgment as to the performance of the government.

Some parliamentary systems are typified by shifting coalition of different forces, rather than disciplined parties. Under such circumstances, governments are often weak and unstable, leading to a lack of continuity and direction in public policy.

Many parliamentary governments, particularly in new democracy, are not comprised of inclusive multi party coalition but rather by discipline single parties. In divided societies, such parties can represent predominately or exclusively are ethnic group. When placed in a parliamentary system, a 51% majority of the seats in such cases can result in 100% of the political power, as there is few or no ameliorating device to restrain the power of the executive- hence the term "elective dictatorship" associated with some cases of single party parliamentary rule.

Moreover, and in direct contrast to the separation of powers that occurs under Presidentialism. Many parliaments in practice provide a very weak legislative check on government because of the degree of party discipline-which means that a slim parliamentary majority can win every vote on every issue in the parliament. In such cases, parliamentary government can lead to almost complete winner-take-all result.



[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][CENTER][U][B]Disadvantages of Presidential System[/B][/U][/CENTER][/COLOR]

In presidential system no real checks on the executive become more true when there is a direct concordance between President´s party and the majority in the Parliament. In this case the parliament has almost no real check on the executive and can become more of glorified debating chamber then a legitimate horse of review.

One of the most common criticism of presidentialism is, it difficulties in sustaining democratic practices. With the outstanding exception the United States, Presidentialism has stepped into authoritarianism at least once in every nation where it ha s been attempted. These failures are due

to political cultures unconvinced to democracy, the parliament role of the military, but also to the design flows of Presidentialism itself.

By winning the Presidency is a winner –lake all, zero-sum prize. Unlike a Prime Minister, who is likely to have to form coalition, a President´s party can rule without are allies for four to six years, a worrisome situation for many interest group. The danger that zero-sum Presidential system pose is composed by the rigidity of the President´s fixed term in office winners and losers are sharply defined for the entire period of the Presidential of the mandate. Losers must wait four or five years without any access to execute power and patronage. The zero sum came in Presidential regimes raises the stakes of Presidential elections and inevitably exacerbates their attendant tension and polarization.


regards,
floydian