Presidentalism or parliamentarism: which system is better?

In my opinion, Linz rightly emphasizes that “the basic differences between presidential and parliamentary systems is to say that while parliamentarism imparts flexibility to the political process, presidentalism makes it rather rigid”. What is important for the stable democracy –rigid system or flexibly one? To answer this question is also difficult, because answer depends on the factors of different kind that take place in the political system. For example, in some developing countries the rigid system is better, because the strong and sustainable authority creates more advantageous environment for implementation of reforms and long-term state programs. Therefore the presidential system is seemed to be more adequate for these countries. Furthermore, the lack of party system or non-existence of strong political parties does not allow to these countries to build the parliamentary system, which require strong political parties. In my opinion, taking into consideration that parliamentarism allows participation of different political groups in decision making gradual transition from presidential system to parliamentary one is possible in developing countries through natural establishment of strong party system.  

Another problematic feature of presidentalism emphasized by Linz is referred to the fact that “it operates according to the rule of ‘winner-take all’ – an arrangement that tends to make democratic politics a zero-sum game”[…]. In my opinion, this feature can be considered as the weak argument against presidentalism because of two reasons. First of all, “winner-take all” system can be avoided by using different kind of election systems. As the Donald L. Horowitz describes in “Comparing Democratic Systems” the experience of Nigeria can be shown as the brilliant example to avoid the “zero-sum game”. In other words, Linz’s argument is useful to argue against certain type of election but not presidential system. The second reason is “winner take all” system does not exist only in presidential systems. As Horowitz describes “it is Westminster, the mother of Parliaments, that produces such outcomes as often as any presidential system does” (Horowitz p.206). Therefore I don’t agree with the Linz’s argument based on fact that “winner takes-all” factor is disadvantage of presidential system.  

Which type of democratic regime- presidential or parliamentary – is more adequate for efficiency? Taking into account that both system succeed in different type of democracies, it is impossible strongly argue against any of them. To argue against presidential system of US or parliamentary system of Great Britain is seemed illogical because both systems are plausible examples of stable democracy.  I completely agree with conclusion remark of Linz that “every country has unique aspects that one must take into account – traditions of federalism, ethnic or cultural heterogeneity, and so on”. During determination of regime all these features should be considered and taken into account.