Politics Notes Presidential vs Parliamentary Systems Notes
Complete set of notes on the debate as to the relative benefits and disadvantages of presidential and parliamentary systems of government.
Contains:
- Extensive analysis of works by Linz, Ljiphart and their critics
- An essay on the distinctive features of each system
- Book notes on all readings covered
Author is currently studying for Finals at Somerville College, Oxford, and interned for Credit Suisse. Achieved a Distinction (first) in Prelims (first year exams) using these notes....
The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Presidential vs Parliamentary Systems Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Definitions
Distinction 1
In parliamentary governments, the head of the government is dependent upon the confidence of the legislature
In presidential forms, the head of government is elected for fixed, constitutionally prescribed term and in normal circumstances cannot be forced to resign by the legislature (except by impeachment)
Distinction 2
Presidential heads of government are popularly elected directly or via an electoral college
Prime Ministers are selected by a variety of methods (party election, inter-party bargaining, presidential appointment)
Although Bagehot uses the term election due to the non-separation of the legislature and the executive
Distinction 3
Parliamentary systems have collective or collegial executives
Can vary between pre-eminence and equality with other ministers (see Elgie notes) but still collegial
Presidential systems have single person, non-collegial executives
How well do three definitional criteria above serve to classify as either presidential or parliamentary?
Typology of types of democracy with empirical examples | Collegial executive | One-person executive | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent on legislative confidence | Not dependent on legislative confidence | Dependent upon legislative confidence | Not dependent upon legislative confidence | |
Executive selected by legislature | Most Western Europe Australia Canada India Israel Japan | Switzerland | No empirical examples (a) | Lebanon |
Executive selected by voters | No empirical examples (b) | Cyprus (1960-3) Uruguay (1952-67) | No empirical examples (c) | Most Latin America France (5th Repb) USA South Korea Philippines |
Empty cells are those against which the logic of legislative confidence dictates
A) would be a parliamentary system whereby the Prime Minister’s relationship to his/her cabinet resembles that of a president to his/her cabinet
B) and C) could not claim to be legitimately democratic because a vote of non-confidence by the legislature would run against the popular will
Only acceptable whereby the executive had the right to dissolve the legislature
Problematic however for classifying semi-presidential governments
Some can be defined as one or other by asking who really holds the power: President or Prime Minister?
For others, it depends on circumstances i.e. France and whether or not it is in a period of cohabitation or not
Simple question advocated by Maurice Duverger before Mitterrand lost majority in National Assembly and was forced to appoint Chirac to the presidency
This circumstantial model is accepted as the consensus point of semi-presidentialism
Also theoretically possible (Portugal and Finland) to have situation whereby Prime Minister is head of the government and the President’s prerogative only extends so far as a limited special role in foreign affairs and matters of national sovereignty
Advantages and disadvantages
Advantages of presidentialism
Executive stability
Based on a fixed term of office, which cannot be upset by the frequent use of legislative power to overhaul cabinets through votes of no confidence or the loss of majority support in the legislature
Potential cabinet instability is an inherent and inevitable feature of parliamentary systems
How serious is the problem?
Only a problem when it assumes extreme frequency
French Fourth Republic, Weimar Germany for example
In fact, gives the flexibility to change quickly when necessary as a counterpoint to the potentially damaging rigidity of presidential terms of office
Could be remedied by constructive vote of no-confidence: where a prime minister can only be removed if a new one is elected at the same time to overcome the problem of negative majorities (coalitions too far apart to function as a government)
However, this may cause executive-legislative deadlock
Greater democracy
Popular election of the chief executive is regarded as more democratic than the indirect election (formal or informal)
Argument that heads of government should be directed elected by the people has significant validity
Linz (noted Parliamentary fan) acknowledges the democratic value of popular election of the chief executive
In practice, parliamentary systems offer the functional equivalent of popular election of the Prime Minister
Especially two party systems where the leaders of the party are synonymous with party policy as a whole
Obviously examples of Gordon Brown and John Major serve as a counterpoint to this
Less so in multi-party systems relying on coalition where Prime Minister is only appointed after the bargaining stage
Legislatures in parliamentary systems have two incompatible functions: making laws and supporting the cabinet in office
Ensures the dominance of the executive over the legislature, eg Britain
Only in presidential systems can the legislature truly legislate, provided of course the executive can only execute policy
Democratic counterarguments
Separation of powers also means division of responsibility and thus the loss of accountability
Can occur also in multi-party systems whereby party accountability is weak
Concentration of executive power in the hands of one individual is undemocratic
Batlle argues ‘This feature of presidential systems must be seen as a pre-democratic atavism that survives in the early phases of democracy but that should disappear as systems progress towards full democracy’
More limited government
Separation of powers means limited government creating an indispensable protection of individual liberty against the government’s tyranny
Montesequieu’s main line of argument
James Madison also argues it is an axiom so obvious it is not necessary to justify
Schlesinger: Only in a separation of powers could the Watergate scandal have been brought to light
QFT: Possible counter-arguments include the Telegraph and parliamentary expenses, leading to the suggestion that it was less the form of government that...
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Presidential vs Parliamentary Systems Notes.
Complete set of notes on the debate as to the relative benefits and disadvantages of presidential and parliamentary systems of government.
Contains:
- Extensive analysis of works by Linz, Ljiphart and their critics
- An essay on the distinctive features of each system
- Book notes on all readings covered
Author is currently studying for Finals at Somerville College, Oxford, and interned for Credit Suisse. Achieved a Distinction (first) in Prelims (first year exams) using these notes....
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get Started