Why might parliamentary democracy be superior to presidential democracy?
7. Why might parliamentary democracy be superior to presidential democracy?
Parliamentary democracy and presidential democracy are alike in many ways when comparisons are drawn from two similarly strong western liberal democratic systems. They both enjoy the same fundamental principles of liberal democracy, with those living under this system enjoying the same rights and freedoms with comparable economic conditions. The real difference between these two systems lies in the division of power. The main modes of comparison that shall be utilised in this essay shall deal mainly with the exercise of power. The power that different players within the system hold, how they exercise this power and the checks in place to control their power. The flexibility of the regime, can it cope with crisis?
In order to answer these questions a comparison will be drawn between the Parliamentary Westminster model of Britain and the Presidential system of France. By comparing these two models it shall be shown that for many varying reasons that parliamentary democracy is superior to presidential democracy.
Parliamentarism has been defined as having the parliament as the only democratically legitimate institution is parliament, whereby the governments authority is completely dependent upon parliamentary confidence. (Linz, 2003 p258). While R. S. Katz argues that there are three conditions necessary to declare a system parliamentary:
* All major government decisions must be taken by people chosen in elections conducted along party lines.
* Policy must be decided within governing party (parties if coalition)
* The highest officials (ministers) must be selected within their parties and be responsible to the people through their parties.
This definition however represents the ideal type.
In presidential systems according to Juan Linz, an executive with considerable constitutional powers - generally including full control of the composition of the cabinet and administration - is directly for a fixed term. The president is also the symbolic Head of State.
When the two systems are compared under the following headings it is easy to see how parliamentary democracy is superior to that of presidential democracy.
Direct Mandate:
While some would argue that because a prime minister is usually chosen by the legislature and a president is chosen by the people that a president is therefore more a more democratic leadership. However this argument is easily countered as the electorate know that it will be the party leader who will become Prime Minister if elected in the Westminister model, in effect "a general election has the character ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
When the two systems are compared under the following headings it is easy to see how parliamentary democracy is superior to that of presidential democracy.
Direct Mandate:
While some would argue that because a prime minister is usually chosen by the legislature and a president is chosen by the people that a president is therefore more a more democratic leadership. However this argument is easily countered as the electorate know that it will be the party leader who will become Prime Minister if elected in the Westminister model, in effect "a general election has the character of a plebiscite on the party leader" (Lowenstein 1967 p119) A Prime Minister is also more accountable to the people as he can so easily be replaced if the need arises.
Separation of Powers:
That the expectative and the legislature are separately elected under a presidential system it is argued is an advantage as each branch can keep an eye on the actions of the other. Yet this too brings its own problems. It increases the likelihood of executive/legislative deadlock, (Mainwaring, 2003 p268), especially in a period of cohabitation as can be clearly seen in the French model which in turn affects the Presidents ability to pursue a coherent course of action. This is in contrast to the Westminster model of Britain where the executive is usually drawn from the party's majority in Commons making the likelihood of deadlock much less likely.
Stability:
There is a perception that a president by virtue of his fixed term in office offers greater stability that his Prime Ministerial counterpart who can be replaced at any time. While this may be true for the most part, problems arise if there is a crisis situation. Due to the rigid nature of Presidency, it is difficult to remove a deeply unpopular or incompetent President from power short of impeachment, and this process has the potential to shake the system to its very core.(Mainwaring p268). Whereas in the parliamentary system there is the procedure of the vote of no confidence, which is the "theory of life or death over government" (Meny & Knapp 1998). However in practice this device is very rarely used.
Presidentialism as also been criticized for skewing the party system toward a one-party dominant system and away from a multiparty system, thereby rendering it unstable and prone to breakdown.(Grugel 2002 p75).
As such other methods of keeping the government in check have evolved over time (Meny & Knapp 1998 p211)
Question Time, developed in Britain, been adopted by most other parliamentary/ democratic systems across Western Europe.
Members of Parliament are allowed to ask up to two questions each per day with the proviso that they give the relevant ministers at least 48 hours notice (in practice may mean several weeks). Question time lasts for one hour each day except Friday and questions not answered orally by the end of the hour receive a written reply. There is a dual purpose to this exercise in that it serves the practical purpose of allowing the opposition and the public to find out information on the administrations position on relevant issues. It also has a political purpose in being a method of embarrassing the government. As a method of Control it was used to great effect in West Germany 1962 when Minister of Defence Franz Josef Strauss had to resign over a question on the Speigel affair. This Question Time is a very effective way of maintaining transparency in the government and holding them accountable for their actions not readily available in a presidential system.
In Britain there is also the system of interpellation or motion for adjournment, which is not allowed in France. This is where a backbencher with support form 40 others propose a debate on important matters that should have urgent consideration. This system allows for greater participation in the political process for backbenchers and members of the opposition.
Committees: of inquiry and control
In France these committees possess the least control and influence. The bipolarization between parties undermined the credibility of inquiries, controlled for the most part by the majority party. In the end the opposition stopped calling for the setting up of committees.
This is in sharp contrast to Britain where by the reforms of 1979, 14 committees were set up, each with their own area of specialization and responsibility. They help to keep a close eye on the functioning and policies of each of the various ministries, however fewer than 5% of select committee reports are debated in commons.(Meny & Knapp 1998)
In all parliamentary systems, all these possible circumstances, the control exercised by chambers, depends not so much upon the sanctions that they impose, but rather upon the continuing pressure that they can apply to the government and the publicity that this attracts as it is the formidable impact of the media that make these controls without sanctions so powerful.
There are also many perils of Presidentialism:
It destroys weak democracy, if democracy is defined as just 25 years of uninterrupted democracy then presidential systems have not fared well, with there being only 4 successful presidential systems in place compared to 24 that have parliamentary systems. (Mainwaring 2002 p266) Linz (1994 and Lijphart (1994) have both argued that democracy is stronger where elites opt for a parliamentary rather that a presidential system.
With zero-sum election it's a winner take all game with the failed opposition excluded from politics for the next few (7) years. In a parliamentary system there is always the potential for coalition forming that make parties toe the line and line become to extreme so as to keep all options open, which is not so in a presidential system.
There is also the problem of dual-legitimacy as both branches of government are elected by the people which has the grater claim to legitimacy? This problem is clearly shown in the French system during a period of cohabitation where the powers of the President become constrained to a large degree and is obliged to give a large measure of his power to the Prime Minister from the opposing camp. (Meny & Knapp 1998)
In conclusion it is clear to see that parliamentary democracy is superior to that of presidential democracy. Parliamenarism offers more transparency, flexibility in crisis situations and more effective checks on governmental power. It encourages democracy and is not prone to slipping into an authoritarian regime. This is in contrast to Presiential democracy where there is a weakness in conflict resolution, a tendency towards authoritarianism especially with the difficulties of removing a leader mid-term. The zero-sum game of elections and its destruction of weak democracy. It is obvious then that parliamentary democracy must be superior to that of presidential democracy for all of the reasons outlined above.
Biblography:
Birch, Anthony H. (1993) The British System of Government London: Routledge
Rose, Richard & Suleiman, Ezra N. (1982) Presidents & Prime Ministers US
Neustadt, E. (1960) Presidential Power US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Lowenstein, Karl (1967) British Cabinet Government US: Oxford University Press
Meny, Yves & Knapp, Andrew (1998) Government and Politics in Western Europe Oxford: Oxford University Press,
Hancock, Donald (1998) Politics in Western Europe : United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, and the European Community Basingstoke : Macmillan
Grugel, Jean (2002) Democratization New Hampshire: Palgrave
Katz, R. S. (1987) Party governments : European and American experiences Berlin: de GruyterDahl, R, Shapiro, I & Cheibub, J. (2003) Democracy sourcebook: The Peirls of Presidentialism Juan Linz
Presidentialism, Multiparism amd De,pcracu the difficult combination Scott Mainwaring
Massachusetts.
Riggs, Fred W. (1998) "Presdentialism vs. Parliamentarism: Implications for Representaiveness and Legitimacy" 18:3 pp253-278
