The parliamentary government is conceptually simpler than the presidential government. It does not allow for any separation of powers. The parliament and the cabinet which operates only by the support of the parliament hold all the states' governmental political power. With this simple concentration of power, political decisions should in principle be made clearly and directly, with a minimum of delay. Presidential government is a democratic system in which the legislature and the executive exist independently and are elected independently of each other. Both parts of the governmental apparatus are responsible for the making and carrying out of law; but they are independent, so it often happens that they compete and find themselves in conflict. The executive and legislature are not forced into the kind of cooperation that tends to be ensured in a parliamentary system, where the two depend closely on one another.
The basic principles of a pure parliamentary system are: a parliament of representatives is elected by the citizens of the state. The executive power of the state is lodged with a cabinet of women and men who are selected by the parliament to conduct the affairs of the state. The cabinet retains power as long as it has the confidence of the parliament: that is, only as long as it can command a minority of the votes. Just as the parliament holds the cabinet in jeopardy the leader of the cabinet usually has the right to have the parliament disbanded, forcing a new election that will lead to a new distribution of power.
There are advantages and disadvantages to the parliamentary government. The advantages are that the government can respond fairly directly to changed circumstances because power is unified. Also the lines of responsibility for policy making are clear. Elections should mean more, because voters can know exactly whom to blame for their current situation. The disadvantages are that in a parliamentary system there are few protections for a minority that feels it is being wronged. A secondary disadvantage with the parliamentary system is that it may produce unstable government.
In a presidential system the political party may operate to soften the natural competition between independent executives and legislatures. Parties are often more loosely unified in presidential systems than in parliamentary systems. In parliamentary systems, the premier and cabinet hold over the heads of ordinary members of parliament the threat that they may not advance into executive office if they do not cooperate with the leadership. In a presidential system, the president has little control over the careers and advancements of members of the legislature and cannot force unity on them. Even when the president's party has a majority of the seats in the legislature, the president will usually not be able to control what happens in the legislature as closely as most cabinets can control their parliaments in parliamentary systems.
There is no guarantee that the party that holds the presidency will also control the legislature. The two parts of the governmental apparatus are elected independently; therefore, it may well happen that one party will have prevailed in the presidential election and another in elections for the legislature. For instance, throughout the 1980s, the Republican Party held the U.S. presidency and at times controlled the Senate, but the Democratic Party controlled the House of Representatives. And thee same situation held in reverse for much of the 1990s. When there is divided control such as this, cooperation between the two branches of government is even more fragile.
The main differences between a parliamentary and presidential system are; policy leadership is often more clearly lodged with a president than with a parliamentary cabinet. Responsibility for policy is more difficult to identify in a presidential system. Comprehensive policy is more difficult to accomplish in a presidential system than in a parliamentary system. Recruitment of executive leaders differs in two systems. There are special problems for review and control of the executive in a presidential system. The symbolic and political aspects of the executive are unified in a presidential system but split in a parliamentary system. Constitutional review of some sort seems to be more necessary in a presidential system, as is true in general of divided systems of power.
Overall the structure of the parliamentary government is less complex than that of the presidential government. Presidential governments are systems in which power is securely retained by a president, and the symbolic and political aspects of the executive are unified. In addition constitutional review of some sort seems to be more necessary in a presidential system. In parliamentary systems on the other hand power is more loosely lodged with a parliamentary cabinet. Responsibility for policy, and comprehensive policy are much more easy to identify in a parliamentary system as well.
Parliamentary government
No comments:
Post a Comment