This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Politics Notes Presidential vs Parliamentary Systems Notes

Book Notes Parliamentary Vs Presidential Government (Ed. Lijphart) Notes

Updated Book Notes Parliamentary Vs Presidential Government (Ed. Lijphart) Notes

Presidential vs Parliamentary Systems Notes

Presidential vs Parliamentary Systems

Approximately 25 pages

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:

Introduction

  • 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.