Various governance systems are used in different countries, including the presidential, parliamentary, and mixed-governance systems. The latter is also referred to as the semi-presidential or semi-parliamentary system. The semi-presidential type is common in different countries, including France, Germany, and other European countries. It is a regime where the power of the executive is divided between a country’s prime minister and president.
This indicates that countries can be classified as semi-presidential by considering how power is divided, and mostly where the president seems to exhibit more power than the prime minister (Raunio and Sebelius 19). A country with a semi-presidential system undergoes frequent and systematic elections as defined by the state’s constitution. The semi-presidential is the most effective system since it entirely relies on the constitution and uses popular votes to elect the president and the legislature to elect the prime minister.
The most important advantage of a hybrid system is the maintenance of stability in parliament and the inability to seize power for one person (or a small group of people). Such a system remains democratic, and protected from authoritarianism, although members of parliament may have different ambitions. The system itself will not allow them to show these ambitions. The impeachment procedure is easy and often applicable in situations where the unpopular, lost reputation or caught in a serious scandal, the prime minister is removed from power.
Popular votes are used to elect the head of state in a semi-presidential democracy. It is crucial to note that if a monarchical head of state exists, it shows that such jurisdiction has a parliamentary democracy instead of its pure form of semi-presidential governance. This further limits the application of the unified cabinet responsibility, which is mainly depicted in parliamentary authority. The semi-presidential form of governance’s approach to executive selection shows that the prime minister and the rest of the cabinet come from the legislature (Raunio and Sebelius 3). On the contrary, the president is elected by popular votes and has only executive powers.
The differentiation in the selection of the head of state makes it possible for all the branches of government to remain dependent (Padovano and Gavoille 470). It limits the chances of extending powers that result in the premature termination of leaders due to political differences.
The head of state is a significant figure representing the nation in the international arena, and within the country is the personification of order. This person, however, should not be involved in all serious governance and legislative matters. Many issues are shifted away from the president and placed in specialists with the appropriate education. This way, people can avoid populism on the part of the authorities and most media personalities, and also, most importantly, one can avoid profanity when one person tries to demonstrate how seriously and deeply they understand all areas of the life of the state and society.
The hybrid system appears to be balanced, earning the trust of many citizens around the world. The hybrid system enables and development of elections at different levels of government. It is also a manifestation of direct democracy when people have the right and the opportunity to participate in elections at the local level of their city or district (when candidates can be personally acquainted with voters), as well as in elections at the state level.
While the roundabout of elections is taking place, the president, as mentioned earlier, is exclusively a face and figure in the international arena. His or her responsibilities in the geopolitical space include firm convictions and decisiveness. Otherwise, a weak leader will only provoke ridicule from the international community, but in the worst case, the county they represent could end up with sanctions.
Mixed systems tend to contain less corruption than purely presidential ones due to many factors, including public censure. Crime is usually easily disclosed by investigative journalists or rivals in parliament. The hybrid system makes it possible for even marginalized segments of society to participate in state life. In this system, there is a possibility for public speaking in parliament or an impromptu tribune. One can create parties of interest, and hold rallies and meetings. Each party can reflect a unique interest or a group of people related to the same priorities.
The hybrid system has many advantages over other methods. The main advantage is the shift in power from one person to a broader group representing the public interest. Parliament can legally remove the prime minister if it sees fit. Such a system of governance helps maintain a stable democracy and avoid authoritarianism. The head of state then plays the role of a strategic figure in the international arena, being a representative. The semi-presidential system develops a system of elections at different levels in which all citizens can participate. Such a system also reduces the percentage of corruption and makes proceedings, courts, and scandals related to crime or other essential topics more transparent. Such a mixed system allows different groups of interests and priorities to speak in an organized manner and express their opinions.
Works Cited
Padovano, Fabio, and Nicolas Gavoille. “Legislative Cycles in a Semipresidential System.” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, vol. 173, no. 3, 2017, p. 470.
Raunio, Tapio, and Thomas Sedelius. Semi-Presidential Policy-Making in Europe: Executive Coordination and Political Leadership. Springer, 2019.