Parliamentarism versus Presidentialism Essay Example

of no confidence. Therefore, it possesses both executive and legislative powers and can govern effectively even without a government.

In the event that such a situation arises, a new government is established or fresh elections are conducted if feasible. The president or prime minister, who is determined by the leader of the government, usually attains office through a popular vote and holds their position for a set duration. Nevertheless, the parliament has the authority to impeach and dismiss the head of government before the subsequent election. Conversely, in a presidential system of governance, there exists an absolute division between executive and legislative powers.

In this system, the government and the parliament have fixed terms and operate independently. Unlike in a parliamentarism system, presidentialism governments do not always have a legislative majority. This lack of guarantee for a majority often leads to political instability as the two powers frequently conflict with each other.

In presidentialism systems, decision-making is largely decentralized, with the president primarily responding to policy and law proposals from the parliament. However, in many developing countries, these proposals often prioritize politicians' personal ambitions and interests over those of the voters. This undermines democracy as politicians prioritize individualistic goals over partisan strategies.

According to Colomer and Gabriel (2005, 60), a reduced ability of the government to implement and influence policies may result in political instability. The suggestion of adopting a parliamentary system instead of a presidential regime is less effective in developing countries with lower per capita income. Furthermore, there is also a risk of long-term dictatorship.

In a parliamentary system of governance, deadlocks can arise when the legislature and

executive branches clash. If a government loses majority support from the parliament following an election, it becomes susceptible to a vote of no confidence. Consequently, the parliament has the authority to expeditiously and effortlessly remove the government. This recurring cycle endangers democracy within a nation.

Research and evidence indicate that in both parliamentary and presidential systems, political leaders and parties may have a desire to create coalition governments with the elected government. The probability and reasons for forming a coalition are comparable in these two systems, based on specific institutional factors. Therefore, the sole distinction between coalitions formed in parliamentary and presidential systems is the number of participants involved, rather than the effectiveness of governance (Bagehot, 1992, 66).

The presence of multiple political parties in a nation is beneficial for promoting democracy. However, if there are only a few political parties, it can result in the establishment of an authoritarian regime. Furthermore, as the number of political parties increases, there is a higher probability of forming coalitions and causing political instability.

Political stability is frequently achieved through coalitions in developing countries, although alternative methods exist. Moreover, the presidentialism system of governance does not inherently incorporate decision-making decentralization. Nevertheless, there are approaches to organizing the process to eliminate any centrifugal forces found in all systems. The present differences in democratic systems are also heavily influenced by their historical developments.

Presidentialism persists in nations where the military can intervene in politics, contributing to the potential success of this system. However, democracies within such regimes are prone to collapse due to societal factors (Colomer & Gabriel, 2005, 89). Although neither system is fully

democratic, presidentialism brings its own advantages and notable disadvantages, whereas parliamentarism offers disadvantages along with significant advantages.

To begin with, although presidentialism provides more executive stability and limited government powers, a significant drawback is the frequent deadlocks between the executive and the legislature, resulting in political instability particularly in developing nations. Conversely, in a parliamentary system of governance, the parliament can oversee and influence the government's actions, ensuring that it fulfills the requirements of its citizens.

Compared to other systems, the presidential system of democracy is characterized by less flexibility and operates with rigidity, datedness, and specificity. This inflexibility in the executive branch can lead to dictatorship, which has been observed in developing countries as well as democracies. However, the likelihood of conflict arising from this potential is relatively low. On the other hand, the parliamentary system of democracy is known for its greater adaptability.

In the course of nations' history, there have been instances of coups and dictatorships as presidents seek to retain their power. The presidentialism system of democracy is associated with a winner take all element that is tied to the political party and electoral system. It is widely recognized that presidentialism impedes coalition building and the merging of multiple parties, leading to the possibility of a zero-sum game.

In a parliamentary system of democracy, if there is executive instability, government changes can occur quickly. This is different from a presidential system where swift government changes are not possible. In the parliamentary system, mechanisms have been put in place to deal with situations involving multiple parties. These parties must reach an agreement on forming a government (Kent, 2001,

62).

The parliamentary system of governance has a significant advantage in resolving deadlocks between the legislature and the executive through legislative confidence. This means that conflicts between the two powers are rare because the government needs approval from the legislature. The legislature ensures that the executive is accountable for its actions, thus making these two powers mutually influential and facilitating effective administration of democracy within a nation.

The legislative branch may feel demoralized by its power to impact others but not themselves, despite being a government watchdog. Conversely, presidentialism is often viewed as exclusive, while the parliamentary system of democracy tends to be more inclusive. Hence, the electoral system plays a crucial role in fostering inclusivity within this democratic framework.

According to studies, countries with executive power sharing in democratic systems tend to experience high per capita income, riots and demonstrations, political strikes and assassinations. This is in contrast to countries governed by a single party or bare majority cabinets. Within a parliamentary system, various political parties, leaders, and officers in the legislature can make changes and realignments, or criticize prime ministers and presidents between elections (Stefan, 1994, 67).

On the other hand, unexpected events can occur despite the benefits that predictability and the need for authority bring to presidentialism. These events can vary from critical errors in judgment due to challenging circumstances to the incumbent's death. Consequently, governance under presidentialism becomes less predictable and weaker compared to parliamentarism. In a parliamentary system, authority and legitimacy can be strengthened through actions like dissolving parliament for new elections or holding a vote of confidence.

Furthermore, the selection of a head of

state can occur without causing any system-wide crisis. To conclude, both democratic systems have their own advantages and disadvantages. However, it is also true that for any developing nation, adopting a parliamentary system is the best approach in establishing or reestablishing democracy. Regardless, parliamentarism effectively monitors the government's actions and prevents it from becoming dictatorial or wielding excessive power. Therefore, it is advisable for a developing country to utilize parliamentarism in their pursuit of democracy.