Essay Distinctive Features Of Parliamentary And Presidential Systems Of Government Notes

“As more of the world’s nations turn to democracy, interest in alternative constitutional forms and arrangements has extended well beyond academic circles” (Linz, quoted in Lijphart, 1992, p.118) with the debate assuming practical importance with the construction of new states, and intensified by the tragic individual and economic costs of government failure. One only needs to consider the examples of Sierra Leone and Somalia, both of which have suffered stalled development and consequent deprivation due to the lack of a functioning state. The question regarding the features characteristic of parliamentary and presidential systems of government asks for not only a recognition of individual features, such as the direct election of the head of government in a presidency in comparison to the selection of a prime minister by intra-party election, inter-party bargaining or presidential appointment, but appraisal of their relative merits and failings in order to determine whether either system of government, by which we mean the manner in which the state is organized in order to assert its will over the population, attains a greater degree of success in the form of stability or legitimacy. Presidentialism, while virtuous on the basis that the chief executive is directly elected by the population and, given the correct voting system, according to the majoritarian principle, is characterised by irresolvable executive-legislature deadlock, damaging temporal rigidity and divisive “winner-takes-all” government with the consequences these major issues entail. By contrast, parliamentary systems of government, while by no means identical or infallible, offer “the flexible and adaptable institutional context for the establishment and consolidation of democracy” (Linz, quoted in Lijphart, 1992, p.126).

It is important to note that there are not merely two discrete forms of government, purely presidential and purely parliamentary. As Elgie discusses, this notion is too simplistic and instead a pluralistic approach should be taken, with systems of government determined by the power of different political actors (Elgie, 1997). However, there are several key differences which one must acknowledge before serious discussion of the benefits or failings of a primarily presidential, primarily parliamentary or semi-presidential system can take place. Firstly, given we have defined a system of government as the form in which the state is organised to exercise power over the population, it is necessary to observe that in parliamentary governments, the head of the government is dependent upon the confidence of the legislature, while in presidential forms, the head of the government is elected for a fixed term and cannot be forced to resign by the legislature, bar exceptional circumstances such as impeachment. Second, presidential systems feature monocratic, non-collegial executives in contrast to the collective executives of parliamentary forms, in which a prime minister can vary in power between pre-eminence and equality with other ministers but the cabinet as a whole remains accountable to the legislature. This is perhaps best illustrated in the Westminster system, whereby the Cabinet is collectively responsible to Parliament with individual ministers additionally responsible for their department. Finally, the means of election should be considered. Presidents are popularly elected, usually directly, while prime ministers are selected by a variety of methods, as noted above (Lijphart, 1992, p.2). These key differences serve to distinguish between the definitions of presidential and parliamentary forms of government and as such provide a framework in which to analyse and evaluate the consequential benefits and failings of each.

One of the key features of the presidential system of government and the separation of the powers in a system similar to that proposed by Montesquieu is the potential for executive and legislative branches of government to fall into conflict and thus deadlock due to the lack of an institutional method of resolution. Evidently, if the president is opposed by a majority in the legislature, then he or she becomes compromised in their ability to initiate and execute policy decisions. As Linz argues, “Under such circumstances, who has the stronger claim to speak on behalf of the people: the president, or the legislative majority that opposes his policies?” (Linz, 1990, quoted in Lijphart, 1992, p.120) especially given the situation of “dual democratic legitimacy” whereby both the legislature and the executive have been publically elected. This is illustrated by the Chilean example from the 1970s, where President Allende attempted to usurp executive authority, was thwarted in this attempt by the legislature, but national government was paralysed by lack of a mechanism in the presidential constitution to resolve such a circumstance bar waiting for a different mandate from voters at the next elections. Furthermore, Riggs found that presidential regimes in underdeveloped countries did not survive without serious interruption (0 of 33) while two thirds of parliamentary systems in similar countries did. If we take the importance of the debate about the distinctions between different systems of government to be based on its ability to determine the most effective system of government, then the value of such a finding cannot be underestimated. Other critics have taken an even sterner view with Bagehot arguing that such antagonism weakens both the legislature and the executive, rendering them entirely ineffective (Bagehot, 1867, in Lijphart, 1992). However, any criticism of the presidential system based on the notion that stalemate between these branches causes democratic breakdown cannot be deemed satisfactory without dealing sufficiently with the example of the United States. Linz’s argument that “US has successfully rendered such conflicts ‘normal’ and thus defused them” (Linz, 1990, quoted in...

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