Constitutional differences between presidential and parliamentary systems are well known, however, the practical effects of these different constitutional arrangements have not received much attention. This article compares presidential and parliamentary systems. These systems are the most popular kinds of democratic governments. They have both common and different features. In both presidential and parliamentary systems, the chief executive person can be impeached from the position by the legislature only that the process is different. The most prominent difference is the way election is done and the debate style. This article gives two best examples of these democratic systems: the United States of America (Presidential) and the United Kingdom (parliamentary).
A country’s type of government influences how the executive, judicial and legislative organs are organized. Every country needs the government so as to avoid anarchy. A democratic system of governance is one that allows citizens to manage their own government directly or through representatives whom they elect. This is not as authoritarian governments that restrict or prohibit participation of its citizens in governance. This article begins by discussing the presidential system followed by the parliamentary system in general and after these discussions I will show the common features and differences of the two systems of government, and then give a conclusion on the system that is more democratic.
Presidential system
A presidential system is characterized by the office of the president. The president serves as both the chief executive and the head of state. In this system, the president is elected independently of the legislature. The president’s power is normally balanced against the power vested on the legislature meaning the legislature must debate before passing various bills; however the president has the power to veto some bills thus preventing their adoption. The legislature can also override the president’s veto if they garner enough votes. A good example is the American presidential systems; the American president of has the broadest power on foreign affairs; he also has the right deploy the military in many situations, but does not have the right to declare war officially. Recently, the American president requested to be allowed to engage in treaties without asking permission from the legislature but the legislature denied the president’s veto thereby overriding the bill.
The presidential system is a government where there exists an executive branch that presides separately from the legislature, and is not accountable and cannot dismiss it in normal circumstances. The presidential system owes its origins to the old monarchies of England, Scotland and France. The president does not propose bills but has the authority to veto acts of the legislature who in turn may act using supermajority to override a presidential veto. The president’s term in office is fixed and elections are held at designated times and cannot be started by a vote of confidence or any other parliamentary procedure (Cheibub, 2007). The executive branch can be said to be unipersonal because the cabinet members serve at the pleasure of the president and are obliged to implement policies of both the executive and legislative arms. The president has the authority to direct the military, members of the cabinet or any other employee of the government, but has no power to give orders to judges or dismiss them. Governments that separate the executive and legislative arms normally give heads of state the power to pardon or commute sentences of convicted criminals.
In this system, the president acts as the head of state and head of government. Presidents in this system are always active in political processes and their relative power may be determined by the political composition of the legislature and whether their opponents or supporters have the dominant position in the legislative house. There are four basic advantages of the presidential system: separation of power, direct mandate, speed and easy decision making, and stability. Direct mandate implies that the president is directly elected by the people. This may mean that the president is more powerful and legitimate than a leader who is appointed directly. Separation of power puts the legislature and the executive as two parallel arms of power. This structure prevents abuses by ensuring that each arm supervises the other. Other people also argue that a president with supreme authority can implement changes quickly since separation of power can slow the system down. In relation to stability, a president with a given term provides more stability than a state officer (prime minister) who can be dismissed arbitrarily (Cheibub, 2007). The presidential system allows legislators to vote consciously without repercussions from their party. The chief executive may also be removed from the office by the legislature through impeachment.
Parliamentary System
Parliamentary is derived from the word parley meaning a discussion. In this system of governance, the executive and the head of state are two separate offices. In most cases, the head of state primarily plays a ceremonial role whereas the chief executive is in charge of the country’s legislature. This system has a clear differentiation between the head of state and the head of government. The head of government is normally the prime minister while the head of state is normally the figure head either elected popularly or by a hereditary monarch as is the case in UK (Gerring & Strom, 2004).
In this system, parliaments normally tend to have more adversarial debates and the parliament’s plenary sessions are more important than those of committees. Some of these parliaments are elected using plurality voting systems such as is done in the United Kingdom, India and Canada whereas others like New Zealand and Ireland use proportional representation. The parliamentary system of governance allows for greater representation since the governing party will always have the majority in the upper house.
Differences between Presidential and Parliamentary Systems
The major differences between these systems lie in the debate styles and the determination of the chief executive. In a parliamentary system, the chief executive is elected by the legislature and not the people (Gerring & Strom, 2004). The majority in parliament elect the prime minister who is the chief executive. Parliamentarians decide amongst themselves on whom to elect as prime minister. The fusion of the legislative and executive branches in the parliamentary system leads to more discipline amongst members of political parties since parliamentarians normally vote along party lines. On the other hand, presidential systems are less disciplined since legislators are allowed to vote their consciousness with no repercussions from their party. In the presidential system legislators may use the right to prolong speeches so as to delay legislative actions. Parliamentary systems may call for an end to debate as voting begins (Haggard & Mathew, 2001).
Conclusion
The parliamentary system exhibits more democracy than the presidential system. Presidential system gives advantages to the incumbent when they are permitted by law to run for reelection. Constitutional limits to presidential elections are too blunt to address the problem of incumbent advantage. Another reason presidential system is not democratic is that it has fixed terms that obligates leaders to leave office whether or not voters want them to stay (Gerring & Strom, 2004).
References
Cheibub A. (2007). Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gerring J. & Strom C. (2004). “Political Institutions and Corruption: The Role of Unitarism and Parliamentarism.” British Journal of Political Science (April).
Haggard, S. & Mathew, D. (Eds.). ( 2001). Presidents, Parliaments, and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
