On the face of it therefore the Prime Minister seems to have a lot more flexibility in terms of power than the President does. In fact, Richard Newstadt, in this thesis, posed the question as to whether the President had any power other than to persuade. This thus has its advantages and disadvantages; whether or not the President has his hand tied too much, or whether in fact his power is underestimated.
The first major advantage with the Presidential system is that it seems to be more democratic. As the passage of Legislation is so difficult, it means he cannot pass legislation selfishly without some other authority being able to stop him. He cannot therefore become tyrannical and as such the balance of powers creates a better democracy. For example, if the President wishes to invade another country, he must ask permission of Congress in order to commit troops, (the exception is however that the President may, under expedient circumstances commit troops for a limited period of time under the War Powers Act 1973) (This is an example of how the President in times of crisis can be expedient). This makes for a more democratic system as Congress, which can claim to have a greater mandate due to the size of personnel, is directly involved in every action within the United States. However, this is not always the case, as most other Presidential systems have at one point or another fallen into a paternalist state, with the President gaining too much power. In the USA, the Presidents’ power is set through the Constitution, which represents its’ authority and is extremely difficult to change.
Because the President and Congress both have formal consent from the people (through separate elections) the propensity for inner-governmental battling is much higher than that of a Parliamentary System. For example, if the President is a Democrat but both houses are controlled by the Republicans or another party, the President will find it difficult to steer through a legislative program which is not ideologically close to that of the Congressional Majority. This was clear during the early Clinton years when he found it difficult to put through a lot of his environmental programs. This can create what is known as a “lame-duck President”, this is where the President is essentially unable to perform any legislative duty as Congress is so hostile to his policies that he cannot steer any legislation through Committees or either Houses of Congress. What should be noted is that this is more a characteristic of Partisan politics and when the American system was being formed, George Washington never considered that political parties would have developed.
One problem which is normally glossed over is that the President is a ‘winner take all contest’, i.e. there is no ability to split the executive like there is Congress. The office therefore cannot become a coalition, because in a Parliamentary system when a party wins on a slim majority, it must rely on others, who the public would also see as fit to run the country to come to policy decisions collectively. Thus, a President, can in effect be in control of his reserved powers, (such as the power to grant pardons) without constraint, which can be worrying to certain members or groups in society. The parliamentary system would have to be sensitive to the greater plethora of views which the house holds in order to make certain decisions otherwise it will not get a majority and thus will be liable to a vote of no confidence. What this can however prevent is the ability for extremists to get into power. In most Parliamentary systems, the electoral system is a Proportional Representation one in which the vote more naturally reflects minorities in society. This can lead to extremist parties getting into Parliament and then being able to steer legislation to unfair or even racist ends.
This touches on another problem the Presidential system suffers from. It is very difficult to remove the President from office. In the United States, the President has to be formally impeached by the House of Representatives, which requires a two-thirds majority of its members. The Supreme Court then calls the President before it to answer for crimes, which must constitute ‘high crimes and misdemeanours’, which is often a lengthy and unproductive process as during this time, the President is almost completely unable to decide on matters of national importance and the focus of Congress is taken away from domestic issues. The Senate must then vote as a jury on whether or not the results of the investigation truly do constitute said crimes and as the Senate normally has a very slim majority either way this is normally difficult to achieve. If the Senate is tied, the Vice-President as the ‘non-acting’ head of the Senate must then cast the deciding vote, which would never be to remove the President as it would remove his party and his personal influence from the White House. Thus the process is fraught with difficulties. In a parliamentary system however the executive can be removed by a simple vote of no confidence by the opposition who need only a Parliamentary majority to remove the party in power and thus their executive. This is qualified by the fact that only two Presidents have ever been impeached, Nixon and Clinton, and neither have been removed from office, (Nixon resigned and Clinton was cleared by the Supreme Court).
The President is also a symbol of national office and strength. The faces of Clinton, Bush Snr, Bush Jnr, Nixon and Reagan are all synonymous with the Office of the President of the United States. As a singular entity, they provide a symbol in foreign conferences and especially during times of international unrest. They provide a single authority which can either be held accountable or praised. This is not the case with a Parliamentary System as we can see with the War on Iraq, where Geoffrey Hoon was under as much scrutiny as Blair was. This can create confusion and a challenge to the authority of the leader which cannot happen under the Presidency. Colin Powell would never, and legally could never challenge the leadership of George Bush Jnr, whereas any number of Cabinet ministers, the most notable being Clare Short and Robin Cook, have been outspoken at the leadership of Tony Blair. This can cause emotionally instability in the country as the instability of Government is a reflection of the instability of the country in question.
Presidential identity has advantages at times of national and international emergencies. It gives the public an individual to rally behind. For example, the show of individual strength and power that President Bush Jnr showed when flying an F16 Jet and landing it on an aircraft carrier to make a speech about the Americas response to terrorism created a massive feeling of jingoism and faith in the United States Government.
Presidential systems finally tend to be less expensive to maintain. According to the Centre for Economic Policy Research, the size of Presidential governments tends to be smaller than that of Parliamentary systems. Although clearly the United States is the exception to this rule, other countries such as Indonesia and South Korea tend to be a lot less expensive in terms of bureaucracy and especially Civil Service matter than Parliamentary systems such as the UK and Germany. What this study does not take into account is the peripheral organisations that spring up because of a Presidential system of Government.
In the United States the Governments spending and size is dwarfed in comparison to the infrastructure and size of the top Pressure Groups and Think Tanks. The National Rifle Association and the American Enterprise Institute are so big and have so much extra-constitutional power, that they represent large counter-authorities to the Government, thus the President must rely on their support and especially their funding in a way that is not experienced in Parliamentary systems. It can therefore be argued that the expense spared in the bureaucracy means that the Government must source other areas of capital and thus loses some of its democracy in letting un-elected officials to have a say in legislation.
In conclusion, a new democracy will face many difficulties in deciding its new Governmental structure, and a lot will depend on the previous administration and especially the history of the country. A Presidential system, although with its stable leadership and its greater democratic nature, is susceptible to outside influences such as big pressure groups and the inability to remove the leadership provide serious issues for the public to consider. Whereas in a Parliamentary system, personnel are easily moved around and the passage of legislation is clearly much easier to get through in times of crisis; although, like in the UK, a second chamber can sometimes not provide a good enough separation of powers and thus may lead to an over-powerful Prime Minister. What is important is consider the previous history, and in a country where authoritarian leaders have characterised its past, a Presidential system may not be so wise, whereas a country which has had a lot of ineffective coalitions through semi-democracies, may see a single head of state as preferable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_system
P. 270 Hague and Harrop Comparative Government and Politics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_system#Parliament_versus_Congress
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lame%20duck
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gw1.html
P.273 Hague and Harrop Comparative Government and Politics
(Discussion Paper in Bibliography)
P. 273 Hague and Harrop – Comparative Government and Politics