There is much less variation in presidential powers across systems. “All of these presidents hand-pick their cabinets, make a range of other appointments (in both cases possibly subject to confirmation by the legislature), chair the cabinent meetings (and thus set the agenda), are in charge of foreign policy, and have a veto on legislation” (Siaroff, 2005). According to Siaroff, only a few presidents (Argentina, Brazil, Chile) have decree powers, whereby they can effectively proclaim something to effect (unless or until there is actual legislation on the issue” (Siaroff, 145).
Under a parliamentary system, “the key day-to-day political position is that of the head of government (prime minister); however, this person is not the head of state; instead, there is almost always a separate head of state” (Siaroff, 2005). A parlimentary head of government does not have any constitutionally fixed mininimum term of office, “so in some cases people have lasted as prime minister for decades, or even only a matter of days or weeks” (Siaroff, 2005). In some parliamentary systems, “there is a formal vote by the parliament on a would-be government/prime minister, which/who must then win this vote of investiture. Such a procedure is called positive parliamentarianism, since there must be a positive endorsement of a new, or continuing, government” (Siaroff, 2005). In contrast, under negative parliamentarianism “there is no vote of invesititure that one must win. A prime minister and government are simply appointed, and they are assumed to be acceptable unless or until there is a successful motion of non-confidence” (Siaroff, 2005).
Parliamentary systems can be unstable, with governments collapsing or changing frequently. However, “if a parliamentary government has both a majority and policy consensus, then it is quite likely to get legislation passed” (Siaroff, 2005). In contrast, presidential systems are stable in the sense that the individual will remain in office, but whether or not they get legislation passed is a different story. As a result, presidential systems may result in a stand still, something that does not occur in parliamentary systems. Another benefit of parliamentary systems is the amount of loyalty members have to the prime minister. Almost never does anyone in the houses go against the prime minister, because any such action could result in a collapse of government and certain job loss.
After researching both the presidential system and the parliamentary system, I have concluded that a prime minister is the more effective leadership position. As a United States citizen I have grown up being told that the of is the world's most powerful figure. However, after analyzing the structure of , I noticed that our government puts tight restraints on the president, which limits the amount of power he actually has. These restraints do not occur in Great Britain, which is lead by a Prime Minister. The powers of a democratic nation’s Houses are used as a balance against the power a president accumulates in his time in office. The United States Constitution for example, ties the president down as to what he can and cannot do. This codified document can only be changed by the Supreme Court. “The bonus of the parliamentary system is that prime ministers tend to operate with more legislative freedom than presidents. Even if a prime minister’s party doesn’t win a majority of the votes, a majority of the members of parliament back his government and, in theory, his agenda” (Corcoran, 2006). This type of legislation power puts a great deal of responsibility directly on the Prime Minister in terms of his ability to act. If the Prime Minister fails, this legislation power makes it much easier to remove a head of government whose policies have failed and whose leadership is widely considered corrupt.
Although I have made the point that a Parliamentary system headed by a Prime Minister is the more effective form of government, I believe the size of the state/nation determines whether or not this system would actually work. Parliamentary systems of government work better in small-countries with a high population of educated citizens. There is a greater feeling of accountability in smaller-countries to enforce their beliefs upon government. Such a government would never work in the United States, because our nation offers divisions in government and thus puts greater limitations on the executive. Americans could not fathom the idea of vesting all of their faith and well-being in the hand of a powerful government. I feel that our government is too protected, and that there is not enough blame on the president’s actions. If a prime minister attempts to put his nation in a position to succeed and fails, he can be removed from office. On the other hand, if a prime minister is doing an exceptional job leading a nation, like Margaret Thatcher (1790-1990) in the UK, then they can remain in office for however long they provide efficient leadership. This allows great leaders a chance to remain in office a lot longer than the 4-6 years a presidential system offers.
Mainly I believe that a government, who is held accountable for its actions, gives its citizens the best opportunity to succeed. Prime Ministers are given a great deal of political power with a short leash. Nations who implement this style of government realize that if the right person is in office, then a lot of achievement and prosperity can trickle down to its citizens. Nations led by a Prime Minister don’t have to wait 4 years to rebound from economic disparity; they can implement action right away. That is why I believe a Prime Minister works better, because he/she is given more opportunities to get involved with legislation, rather than being checked by Congress in a presidential system.
Citation
(1993). Electoral College. Retrieved November 19, 2008, from MSN Encarta Web site:
Corcoran, P (2006, July 31). Might a Parliamentary System Better Serve Mexico?.
Retrieved November 19, 2008, from MEXIDATA . INFO Web site:
Siaroff, A (2005). Comparing Political Regimes. Toronto, Ontario: Broadview Press.
