A democratic government is where citizens of a particular country are given the mandate to vote and elect leaders who will govern the county for a certain period of time. As such the citizens are given the chance to get involved in electing the leaders of their choice. Additionally, apart from electing leaders, the citizens are also involved in making decisions on other sphere of governance, for instance, issues concerning the promulgation of the constitution by accepting or rejecting a change of the constitution through voting exercise. As such, in a democratic country, the majority group decides how such country will be govern but to some extent it allows the minority groups to contribute in the governance of the country by being allowed to participate in the elections fairly. Thus, the sustainability of the democracy depends on the fairness of the voting exercise.
This paper will carry out an assessment of the merits and the demerits of each system to determine the one with the ultimate level of benefits to the citizens and consequently, the most appropriate of the two systems.
Comparing between presidential and parliamentary systems
The overriding similarity between the presidential and the parliamentary systems of government is that both of them are democratic in the sense that it is the citizens who have got the authority to elect the leadership to power. As such, the government is tasked with taking care of the interests of the electorate by representing them in the different spheres of life (Shively, 2008). These interests are taken care of by the leaders that have been elected into the specific arms of the government. By the leaders being the spokespersons of the individuals who elected them, they are responsible for making sure that all their needs have been well taken care of and are answerable to the electorate in the event that some of their needs have not been addressed.
Similarly, in as much as there may be a major similarity in the way these two forms of government are supposed to take care of the electorate’s needs, the mode in which the leaders are elected into power differs in a big way (O'neil, 2015). Notably, the parliamentary system requires that one is elected into the position through direct nomination. The candidates who may wish to be the heads of government are chosen by the party delegates to contest for the position of government leadership. From the foregoing, therefore, it is the number of the members of a particular party who are instrumental in the election process. On the contrary, in the presidential system, the appointment of the leadership lies on the mode of voting whereby the president is elected through the process of the balloting.
In both system of governance, the government is made up of ministries which are responsible for overseeing different areas of governance from commerce, health, defense to tourism. As such, cabinet secretaries are appointed to lead these branches of the government to ensure there is equitable distribution of resources and citizen get urgent services they require to live a comfortable life.
In terms of policy formulation, the parliamentary system of government incorporates the contribution of the cabinet secretaries since the party owes its allegiance to the party delegates. On the contrary, by the president being elected directly to the office by the citizens, it implies that the ultimate authority in the policy formulation process is with the president. This is in line with the realization that it is the people who have faith in the leadership that they have elected into power.
In both systems, the appointment of individuals into notable positions in the government is done by the leaders in both governments. Civil servants like judges and diplomats are appointed into their positions by the leader of the government which in this case is either the president in the United States system or the prime minister as in the case of the United Kingdom. The main difference, however, is that, in the presidential appointment, the nominees had to receive the approval of the legislature before they start discharging their duties (O'neil, 2015). As such, there is no guarantee that the president’s choice will be the ultimate individual to hold a particular position. On the other hand, the leader in the parliamentary system has got overwhelming authority in making these senior appointments which do not necessarily need any approvals from legislative arms of the government.
The advantage and disadvantage
In terms of checks and balances in the way the government operates, both systems depend on the relationship between the legislature and the executive. In the parliamentary system, there is a strong relationship between the executive and the legislature since it is the legislature that is tasked with putting the executive in position. As such, any decision made by the executive is fully supported by the legislature translating to compromised checks and balances (Shively, 2008). On the contrary, in the presidential, system, the clear separation of the three arms of government which is the executive, judiciary and the legislature makes it easy for them to be responsible thereby ensuring that they work effectively and independently. The problem with this system, however, comes in the event that there are conflicts between these arms thereby resulting to the interests of the citizens not being considered.
Which system is more democratic?
As such, from the arguments presented above, the presidential system of democracy carries the day as the most favorable between the two forms of government. This is because by having a system of voting, citizens are given the power to vote in the person they want to lead them. Additionally, the system allows citizens to make important decision such as change of constitution through referendum. It also prevents dictatorship form of governance.
Conclusively, it has been established that democracy plays a crucial in ensuring that the citizenry of a country is able to select the individual that they deem fit to lead them. From the parliamentary and the presidential forms of democracy, the latter has been established as more beneficial to the welfare of the citizens compared to the latter.
Reverences
O'neil, P. H. (2015). Essentials of Comparitive Politics. New York: W.W Norton & Company Inc.
Shively, W. (2008). Power and Choice: An Introduction to Political Science. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
.
