In every country, there are three alternatives to the executive systems. The first system is the “presidential system where the president is the head of the government and the head of state” (Verma, 2009, p. 71). The second alternative of the executive system is the parliamentary system. In the parliamentary system, the president or the monarch can be the head of the state. The third system is the semi-presidential system in where there is both the President and the Prime Minister (Verma, 2009, p.72). The difference between the parliamentary system and the Semi- Presidential system is that the president in the semi- Presidential system has more significant powers than in the parliamentary system.
The presidential type of executive system is of mutual independence than any other system. “The president is the head of the government and state, and both the president and the members of the legislative system are directly elected” (DiGiacomo, 2016, p.63). Presidential candidates have fixed and separate election dates. A president can only be removed from the office after a long process of impeachment.
The second alternative system is the parliamentary type of government (DiGiacomo, 2016, p.63). There are differences between the presidential and the parliamentary form of government. The prime minister who is the holder of the most power in the parliamentary system is the leader of majority. The state’s head is a monarch or a president.
Semi-Presidential system forms the third form of executive government. It is also known as the hybrid model or a mixed system (DiGiacomo, 2016, p.64). It is whereby the President and the Prime Minister share power. The president in this system is elected by a popular vote. The president is given important powers by the constitution, and he or she cannot be removed from the office before the end of his or her term.
A good example of a country with a form of presidential system is the United States of America. To solve the issue of Madison’s dilemma in the United States, the constitution has limited the power of the representatives, the senators, and the president. The other way that it has solved the issue of the Madison’s dilemma is by ensuring that different powers of the minority and majority groups of nonpolitical institutions are defined. The presidential type of executive ensures that no government party or people are given more power to pursue their interests. The Constitution provides specific powers to everyone so as to avoid the issue exploitation of one group by the other.
The parliamentary system has been the most useful in solving the Madison’s dilemma. The citizens of the country are the ones to elect their representatives (Bork, 2009, p. 139). Those that are elected to represent the citizens are delegated and needed to be accountable for any issue that may affect the citizens. There is a close relationship between the legislature and the executive departments in this type of government. In solving the issue of Madison’s dilemma, the law has provided each department with its functions, so that the interest of one department cannot compromise the functions of the other.
The constitution in a Semi- presidential system is supposed to have some specific features to solve the issue of Madison’s dilemma (Lansford, 2007, p.53). It must provide the president with the proper power to initiate any dissolution of the parliament. The other feature is that the president should respect the parliamentary election even if they are against his or her political interests. Those features will ensure that there will be no conflict between the legislature and the executive. The President and the Prime Minister in this form of government share the power. Even if they have different political interests, no one has the power to compromise the functions of the other. Both the President and the Prime Minister have specific duties according to the constitution. As the power for each is indicated in the constitution, then the dilemma of Madison will eventually be solved.
The parliamentary system is regarded as the superior solution (Lansford, 2007, p.53).A good example of a country with this form of government is the Britain. The government of Britain is very efficient as the three departments of the government work in close cooperation in the formulation of the policies and laws. The close relationship of the three departments of the government has facilitated a lot in solving the dilemma of Madison (Sethi). The government under this form of government system has the majority members of parliament, an indication that most of its plans and policies get an easy approval. This increases the efficiency of this government during the creation and implementation of its policies. The ability of this government to be dissolved at any time makes it get criticized for being an unstable form of government.
Work Cited
Bork, R.H. The tempting of America: Simon and Schuster, 2009. Print
DiGiacomo, Gordon. Human Rights: Current Issues and Controversies, 2016. Print.
Lansford, Tom. Democracy. New York, N.Y: Marshall Cavendish Benchmark, 2007. Print.
Sethi, Anamika. "Parliamentary Form Of Government: Its Meaning And Features – Important
India". Important India. N.p., 2014. Web. 5 May 2016.
Verma, A.K. Political Science: FK Publications, 2009. Print
