Presidential
and Parliamentary Systems of Governance
The
tide in the modern world is shifting towards the democratization of governance.
Gone are the days when the authoritarian rule was the order of the day. Middle East states, which has been marred by centuries of
authoritarian rule are finally embracing democracy with presidential,
parliamentary or a hybrid system of governance.
Some of the pillars of both forms of governance include competitive
elections, regulated authority and freedoms and human rights. There is no doubt
that the democratic systems symbolize the advancement of human civilization and
the inclusive nature of modern politics.
Through
presidential and parliamentary systems of governance, citizens are given an
opportunity to influence the governance. This is possible through the election
of people’s representatives at law-making bodies. It is a different case with
authoritarian regimes: there is a prohibition of citizen’s participation in
governance. However, there are differences between the three forms of
democratic governance. The distinction emanates from the constitutional views
regarding the government arms including the judiciary, legislature, and the
executive.
A
classic example of a presidential system is the United States United Kingdom , Japan ,
and Israel
Power
Separation
The
constitution separates differently the powers between the branches of
government in Parliamentary, presidential and hybrid systems. In a
parliamentary system, the parliament has sovereign powers. The Prime Minister
and the Cabinet exercise executive authority as derived from the legislature.
The Prime Minister is not only a Member of Parliament but also bear a direct
responsibility for the body. The government becomes dysfunctional when there is
a lack of cooperation between the legislature and the executive arms. Most
hybrid political systems have the executive power shared between the President
and the Prime Minister though the President is often more powerful. On the
contrary, division of powers among the judiciary, legislature and the executive
characterize the presidential system (Ducat 2). People elect the President
directly, thus making him/her directly answerable.
Terms
and Removal from Office
There
is a sharp contrast between the systems in dethroning the CEO and the dissolution of the legislature. A
direct link exists between the term of office of the CEO
and the legislature in a parliamentary system. The link does not exist in the
case of a presidential system. Instead,
the President and the legislative members are elected separately for set terms
of office. Impeachment motions can be initiated via lower legislative chamber
votes but under specified conditions including incompetence or gross violation
of the law. In a parliamentary government, the Prime Minister is ousted from
office through a parliamentary ‘vote of no confidence’ or by his/her own party
members. If this happens, there will be a fresh electoral process in the
cabinet minister's constituencies.
Functions
of the Legislature
Hybrid,
presidential and parliamentary systems’ legislative bodies pass new laws.
However, the legislative powers vary in terms of initiation and formulation of
new laws. In a presidential system, for instance, the legislature has the power
to formulate its agenda and pass bills.
In fact, it introduces a new legislation, though there is a possibility
of working closely with the executive arm especially when the same party is
powerful in both government branches. There is a greater potential for
assertiveness in the legislature, but other conditions affect the actual
realization. Legislative committees can summon cabinet members, presidential
advisors or expert witnesses for a hearing which can be held publicly or
privately before the legislature (Baumgartner et al. 193).
On
the other hand, the Prime Minister and his/her cabinet have absolute control
over legislative agendas. Therefore, individual legislators have little or no
powers to initiate motions. The cabinet
and the Prime Minister have powers to introduce revenue or budgetary bills. For
example in the UK
Discipline
within the Party
Party
discipline involves a unanimous decision for party members to vote on vital
governance issues. In a parliamentary system, party discipline is fundamental
and more effective than in presidential or hybrid systems. The main reason lies
in the executive government’s need for cohesiveness within the majority party
to survive in a parliamentary system. Presidential system parties are less
structured than the hybrid or the parliamentary systems. The government activities are hardly affected
by failed votes by ruling party members. This gives the legislative members a
freedom to identify with other parties in consideration of important policy
issues. Besides, it enables the
legislative members to prioritize the constituents’ needs rather than party
allegiance.
Developed
countries with parliamentary systems have well-structured parties that
prioritize unified action. The evident
party discipline is necessary to ensure sustainability of the government as the
opposition can easily exploit any weakness or cracks portrayed within the
ruling party (Moran 48).
It
is clear that both the presidential and parliamentary systems of governance
have citizens' needs at hand. Though the parliamentary system is geared towards
party loyalty, checks and balances reconfigure it towards better service
delivery. On the other hand, the summoning of government officials by the
legislature in the presidential system ensures transparency and accountability
in government activities.
Works Cited
Baumgartner, Frank
R. , and Bryan D. Jones Chicago University of Chicago
No comments:
Post a Comment