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 The New Institutional Politics (Lane & Ersson) Notes

Updated Book Notes The New Institutional Politics (Lane & Ersson) 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:

Chapter 6

Presidentialism is a theory focusing on the relationship between the executive and the legislature, in which the president (the head of state) possesses real power rather than just a symbolic function

Note there is variation in presidential executives

European presidentialism vastly different from the American brand outside Europe

Linz: Argues that the only case of successful presidentialism is the USA (1992)

Latin America, Africa and Asia have all suffered failures of presidential systems

A) What is the evidence for such a general rejection of presidentialism?

B) Can we be sure presidentialism, specifically the executive, to blame rather than other factors such as poverty?

C) Can an institutional effect be detected in the operation of presidential regimes?

Linz: Institutionalist position

“Institutional characteristics shape the whole political process and the way of ruling” (1994)

Key question however is: Does the manner in which a government operates matter for outcomes (i.e. impact upon state stability and state performance)?

QFT: When using the phrase “state performance” does one mean the performance of the government internally or the nation externally?

Structuring of the executive

Presidents are always heads of state when the office of the president exists in a country

Premiers are always the head of government when the office of the prime minister exists

Strong presidentialism is where the president fulfils both roles

Weak presidentialism is where there is a president and a premier

Alternatively this could manifest itself as cohabitation in the form of power sharing or struggles between the two offices

France is perhaps an example of this?

If there is no president when there is a prime minister, there is usually a monarchy

There are very few alternatives about the heads of state

Where real executive power is vested in single parties there are still employed nominal heads of states e.g. remaining communist systems, military juntas and the religious regime in Iran

Based on the principle of parallelism where actual power is vested in the shadow structure of decision making bodies of the party and its officers

European presidentialism usually involves the premier sharing executive competences with a powerful president

Elsewhere the president exercises all the prerogatives of executives

Premiers elected by Parliament; strong presidents by direct popular election (thus able to exercise real executive power); weak presidents by either method

The set of weak presidentialism and parliamentarism overlaps

Exceptions

Collective presidentialism used during the French Revolution (1795-99) and modern South Africa

Provides for strong presidentialism even though the president is elected by and accountable to parliament

Both a US president and a British prime minister

Collegiado in Uruguay (1918-33; 1952-67)

Presidential offices circulates yearly among the members of government

Executive institutions

One can consider the institutional structure of an executive formally (through examination of a constitution) and informally (through observation of the practical responsibilities and accountability of the executive)

Formally

More recent strong presidential constitutions (i.e. Latin America, Asia and Africa) have a far wider scope of prerogatives than older ones (i.e. USA)

E.g. Brazilian constitution (1988) giving the President the right to appoint ministers, initiate and approve legislation, veto bills wholly or partially, decree and enforce federal intervention, exercise supreme command over the armed forces, grant pardons and, with the approval of the senate, appoint the ministers of supreme federal court

Lacks the checks and balances of the USA constitution

Weak presidentialism is often outlined constitutionally confining the president to matters strictly in relation to the head of the state

E.g. Estonia (1992) which states “Executive power shall rest with the Government of the Republic” and “The Prime Minister shall represent the Government of the Republic and shall direct its work”

Parliamentarianism, where defined by constitution, identifies the prime minister as the head of the government

E.g. Netherlands (1983): “The Government shall comprise the King and the Ministers. The Ministers, and not the King, shall be responsible for acts of government”

Developed from a policy of counter-signing of royal decrees by ministers, thereby placing juridicial responsibility with the minister

Difficulties arise when the division of competences between the premier and president is not...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Presidential vs Parliamentary Systems Notes.