Presidential and Parliamentary Systems

Introduction

Considerably, across the world, the parliamentary and presidential systems have transformed modern governments. A presidential system is an administrative category whereby the president serves as the single leader of the executive branch and helps in the provision of political leadership, formulation of public policy, and making state’s authoritative decisions. Therefore, presidential systems are democracies where the government does not rely on the legislative majority. Notably, in the 1780s, the United States introduced the presidential system, and some nations that exercise it include Mexico, Brazil, and Venezuela (Dubroff, 2022).

On the other hand, the parliamentary system involves democracies that highly depend on the congressional majority and do not operate under the separation of powers. It originated in the 18th century in the United Kingdom, and the countries exercising the parliamentary system are Germany, Jamaica, Malaysia, Canada, and India (Goldenberg, 2022). In the parliamentary system, the representatives have limited control to represent the local people’s demands, mainly due to the conflict of interest regarding policy-making. In the parliamentary system, the prime minister is part of the legislative body, while in the presidential system, the president is separate from the Congress. Even though many individuals cannot pinpoint the difference between parliamentary and presidential systems, there are unique discrepancies for the sovereign countries practicing them.

Compare and Contrast Between Parliamentary and Presidential Systems

Fusion and Separation of Powers

One of the crucial areas where the parliamentary and presidential systems differ and are similar concerns the fusion and separation of powers. Notably, the parliamentary system amalgamates executive and congressional authorities and personnel in the cabinet, and the legislature acts at the center of government, concentrating on the political struggle in a democratic structure. Considerably, it is regulated by administrative supremacy, and there are no checks on the powers (Manuel, 2019). The presidential system has a strict separation of executive and legislative powers. The legal authorities are vested in the judiciary, legislative control in the parliament, and executive management in the presidency. The availability of balances and checks protects against misruling by state officials, attempting to maintain the government accountable and honest (Koliastasis, 2020).

Similarly, presidential and parliamentary systems have judicial structures that separate powers between the justice department and other governmental branches. The statistical evidence shows that the legislative and executive branches work cohesively in countries practicing a parliamentary system, such as Britain (Parkash, 2022). On the other hand, a country practicing a presidential system, such as the United States, has separate but equal branches of government, including the executive (enforces the law), legislature (makes policies), and judiciary (interprets laws). Regardless of the separation of powers in presidential and parliamentary systems, the government must remain transparent and avoid mismanagement.

Party Discipline

Another area in which presidential and parliamentary systems compare and contrast is party discipline. All the legislative members must comply with the strict political party values, constraining their benchmarking. The disciplined parties offer individual members of parliament substantial safeguards against the efforts of influential lobbying groups (Dubroff, 2022). The opposition parties in Congress ensure that the ruling government is responsible for its administrative proficiency and policies. In the parliamentary system, the cabinet’s power control clarifies political duties. On the other hand, the presidential system has a weaker party discipline, whereby the representatives may not adhere to the norms and develop deviance, making them present the interests of the local groups.

Notably, the division of powers creates differences in political responsibility, resulting in controversial opinions between the legislative and executive members leading to problematic outcomes. Equally, the presidential and parliamentary systems rule by constitution despite evident discrepancies in party discipline. The data reports indicate disciplined parties, such as the French Communist Party, demand their members comply with the coalition’s traditions (Calca, 2021). In the parliamentary parties, the discipline’s significance is ensuring all legislative members vote in supporting policies agreed upon by majority party leadership. Even though the presidential and parliamentary systems have varied party discipline, all members must adhere to the constitutional regulations.

Vote of Confidence and Dissolution of Legislature

The last crucial similarity and difference between parliamentary and presidential systems concerns the vote of confidence and the legislature’s dissolution. In the parliamentary system, the cabinet and the prime minister must request another election or resign if the ruler does not have the required endorsement and may urge the dissolution of parliament. As a result, the parliament’s unpopular measures and policies are outlawed (Goldenberg, 2022). On the contrary, in the presidential system, a fixed term exists where the head of state stays in power, and the elections remain at their scheduled times (Parkash, 2022).

Even though the president might be unpopular, it is challenging to remove him from office. Since the ruler cannot dissolve the legislature, it is difficult to end standstills with the legislative members. Similarly, the presidential and parliamentary systems serve as representative democracies, where elected individuals represent a group of people. In 1979, the Callaghan ministry in Britain was defeated due to a vote of no confidence by 311 members, and the opposition leader, Margaret Thatcher, became the prime minister (Koliastasis, 2020, p. 233). In the United States, three presidents, including Bill Clinton, Andrew Johnson, and Donald Trump, were impeached (Goldenberg, 2022).

However, none was convicted, indicating that removing the executive leader from office is challenging. Even though there are discrepancies in parliamentary and presidential systems, the governments must make decisions impacting the general population.

Conclusion

Even though many people cannot identify the discrepancies between presidential and parliamentary systems, there are distinct differences for the sovereign nations exercising them. The presidential system has a strict separation of powers between the legislature and the executive members, while the parliamentary approach amalgamates the congressional and executive powers in the cabinet. Similarly, both systems have judicial structures that separate powers between the justice department and other governmental branches. At the same time, the two approaches are representative democracies, where elected individuals represent a group of people. In the parliamentary system, the legislative representatives should conform to the strict political party principles, which protects them from dominating lobbying groups.

In the presidential model, there is an extensive division, creating variation in political party responsibility, resulting in the development of deviant behavior and the support of interests of local groups. In the presidential system, general elections are held to determine the next head of state for a fixed term. In contrast, in the parliamentary system, a prime minister can resign and dissolve the legislative. Similarly, both systems believe in the rule of the constitution and act as representative democracies. Regardless of whether the country practices either a presidential or parliamentary system, the rulers should make better policies.

Reference List

Calca, P. (2021) Executive-legislative relations in parliamentary systems: policy-making and legislative processes. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Dubroff, M. D. (2022) ‘What is the difference between a parliamentary and presidential system of government?. Web.

Goldenberg, T. (2022) ‘Israel counts last votes as Netanyahu’s majority firms up’, The Boston Globe. Web.

Koliastasis, P. (2020). ‘The permanent campaign strategy of prime ministers in parliamentary systems: the case of Greece’, Journal of Political Marketing, 19(3), pp. 233-257. Web.

Manuel, P. (2019) Checks and balances: how a parliamentary system could change American politics. Abingdon: Routledge.

Parkash, S. (2022) ‘Presidential v/s parliamentary democracy: A comparative analysis’, International Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(3), pp. 178-188.