In liberal-democratic political systems, which type of executive offers greater scope for democratic accountability: a presidential executive or a prime-ministerial/parliamentary type?

Authors Avatar

In liberal-democratic political systems, which type of executive offers greater scope for democratic accountability: a presidential executive or a prime-ministerial/parliamentary type? 

In liberal-democratic political systems, which type of executive offers greater scope for democratic accountability: a presidential executive or a prime-ministerial/parliamentary type? 

Over the course of this essay firstly I intend to describe the relationship between the electorate and the executive in each political system, then to bring the aspect of accountability into the argument. It is necessary to define exactly what is meant by democratic accountability. Democratic accountability is visible in the modern era in three ways. Firstly it can be seen by the extent to which newly elected executives implement the policies laid out in their election manifesto. Secondly it can be measured in the ability of the electorate to remove an executive from office if these promises are not being kept. Finally it is exhibited in the accountability of the executive in a legal context by way of a judiciary or an independent organisation set up to review specific events.

When analysing the scope for accountability within the presidential system the main area of interest is the relationship between the President and the legislature. Primarily I intend to focus on the American presidential system although useful examples can be drawn from other democratic systems. A President is given more individual powers by the state than a Prime Minister. When the population directly elects the President it can be said that this is a major reason for the powers of governance they receive such as commander in chief of the armed forces.  Presidents can and have used this fact to push legislation through the legislature on the back of their proven support of the population. The president could argue that he represents the view of the state as a whole whereas the members of the legislature are simply representative of their constituencies. “In many South American countries and in France at various times the president has been able to go one step further and to assert that he alone represented the people.” (H.J. Laski 1992:75 )President Roosevelt showed also that in a time of crisis it was “literally impossible in the face of public opinion for congress to have resisted the pressure to give the president exactly what he demanded. (H.J. Laski 1992:75)” In a time such as the economic crisis of the 1930’s, the advantages to the electorate of having an individually elected executive are well demonstrated by the ‘hundred days’ of Roosevelt.

However in normal circumstances the US system, due to the checks and balances to the president’s legislatory power in the constitution, a situation of gridlock can occur. These checks and balances take many forms. An example would be the way that the powers of individual state authorities can restrain the executive, particularly in reference to domestic issues. Another example is mid-term elections, leading to congressmen unwilling to make clear statements of their opinions for fear of disillusioning voters. This mid term election process may also lead to a more divided government, making effective governance harder for the President. This is inherently bad for the electorate as they are often the ones losing out in terms of the lack of policy implementation due to power struggles between the congress and the president. “Factionalism tends to greatly destroy the prospect that any government may continuously hope to drive through an ample programme of social change.”(H.J. Laski 1992:77) The government’s effective lack of ability described by this quote shows a vital flaw in the American system in regards to accountability. The separation of powers between the executive and congress means that often politicians are able to “avoid accountability for government failures.” (Committee on the constitutional system). The American congress is often a scene very different from what a two party system may appear to be. Due to a lack of party discipline a president cannot consistently rely on the votes of members of his party to turn his policies into legislation. This was clearly evident when Reagan’s budget was rejected by congress in 1986. A clear reason for this lack of party discipline is the fact that the  “terms of the president and cabinet are not effected by votes in the legislature.”(S.M. Lipset 1990: 80)This means that unlike prime ministers, presidents are guaranteed their four years in office regardless of opposition in the legislature.  “This lack of cohesion induces presidents and their staffs to conceal important foreign policy decisions from the leaders of their own party in congress.” (Committee on the constitutional system) This can only be seen as creating an executive that is less responsible to the legislature and in turn the electorate. The point of having an elected legislature is so that representatives of the public can regulate policy initiatives. Instead a committee selected by the president, often consisting of close allies of similar interest, who have not been popularly elected, solely takes these decisions. Although the president’s selections have to be ratified by congress this does not restrict him, greatly, especially if he has majority support in congress. However the president can select a cabinet that does not reflect the make up of the legislature, pushing it further away from reflecting public opinion. Again this makes it difficult for the electorate to establish responsibility for policy decisions within the legislature. Lipjhart uses the statistic that “since the second world war 90% of each incumbent legislatures have been re-elected.” (Committee on the constitutional system) This shows that the high level of political wranglings makes it increasingly difficult for the electorate to pick out individuals as being responsible. This leaves them unable to exercise their right to remove them from office via the election process.

Join now!

Although the presidential system can lead to a lack of party discipline it can also result in members of the legislature better representing their constituencies. Lipset observes this facet of the presidential system saying “the representation of diverse interests and value groups in different parties leads to cross party alliances on various issues.” This is in stark contrast to parliamentarian systems where members of parliament are forced to ‘tow the party line’ instead of acting in the best interests of their constituents. This shows a benefit of the presidential system in that the representatives in the legislature are acting ...

This is a preview of the whole essay