Under what conditions are parliamentary forms of government more appropriate than presidential forms?

Authors Avatar

Under what conditions are parliamentary forms of government more appropriate than presidential forms?

The issue of analysing forms of government is one that is difficult because whilst in theory different approaches may always be divisble, in reality the boundaries in political society are much less defined. In this essay, through structured analysis, I intend to compare the parliamentary and presidential governments. In order to evaluate these two forms of government I have devised four circumstances which I believe should be desired in all successful democratic states. These are: the desire for stability, the desire for a fully representative democracy, the desire for accountability, and the desire for fast and effective policy implementation. Through analysis of these circumstances, I intend to reach the conclusion that in all senses of the debate, the parliamentary approach to government is more appropriate than the presidential approach.

One of the key political conditions within states which needs to be analysed is the desire for either increased stability or increased flexibility in the political arena. This may be particularly prevalent in scenarios of economic uncertainty or technological change. Generally, as Bara and Pennington (2009. p.137)  assert, stability within the presidential form of government can be seen to arise due to the fixed-term elections and its separation of powers. This ensures that change is gradual and that the executive branch cannot dominate the legislature which the parliamentary system may be prone to. As Linz (1996, p.128) correctly emphasises, “the basic differences between presidential and parliamentary systems is to say that while parliamentarianism imparts flexibility to the political process, presidentialism makes it rather rigid”.

However, this rigidity should not be seen as giving a state more stability, rather it seems that it can theoretically make it more fragile. The reason behind this is that in the presidential system once an individual is elected it is very difficult for them to then by voted out until the next election. This lack of a political tool to implement change increases the chances of individuals taking non political means such as violence to try and change the status quo. This will in turn affect the political stability of the government largely due to the negative impact such unrest can have on the economy (Abueva, 2005, p.3). Therefore in new democracies that perhaps have a violent history of citizen unrest the presidential approach is not appropriate. It could be argued that by electing the President and legislature and separate times the presidential system solves this problem by allowing individuals to be involved in a direct political sense at least once every two to three years. However, this argument does not hold weight due to the fact that a change in legislature or President will not reverse government policy, it will only halt government policy as it will lead to disagreements whereby the legislature and President desire different political outcomes.

Join now!

This dilemma is in contrast to the parliamentary system where a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister will lead to a definite change in government policy, and thus keep the people appeased. Therefore, in terms of stability it seems the flexibility of the parliamentary system actually makes it more conducive to a stable society. Despite this, the parliamentary approach to government should not be seen as  perfect for maintaining stability. Whilst the flexibility of parliamentary government does allow for change to be made and thus stability to be maintained, the concept of a no confidence vote also ...

This is a preview of the whole essay