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:
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.
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