Between Presidentialism and Parliamentarism : which one is better ?

DEBATE

Between presidential and parliamentary regimes: Is one better than the other?

1. INTRODUCTION

The underlying concept of democracy is that the power ( ​Κράτος ) must be owned by the

people ( δῆμος ), but there are various and diverse means by which the citizens can rule their

state. As tools for the decision making process, parliaments or presidents are the

representatives of their nation and, in virtue of the democratic integrity, to cite the American

President Abraham Lincoln, the governments should be “of the people, by the people, for the

1

people” . In such a perspective, it is important to define the concept of parliamentary regimes

and of presidential regimes as two widespread alternatives of democratic political systems.

A parliamentary regime is a political regime in which the three powers, the legislative power, the executive power and the juridical power are flexible, due to the fact that there is a collaboration and a mutual dependency between the two branches of the state, the legislature and the executive.

A presidential regime can be defined as a political regime in which the three powers are strongly detached, under the control of different branches of the state. What’s remarkable about this system is that the executive power is held by a president, being therefore the head

2

of the government and the head of the state , and is independent from the legislature, as a

3 result of a popular election which can take place in a direct or an indirect form .

Firstly, this presentation exposes the main features of a parliamentary regime which, thanks to its strengths, could appear better than a presidential one that presents some weaknesses. Similarly and secondly, the characteristics of a presidential regime are taken into account with all its plus points, to consequently underline the failings of a parliamentary one. The aim of this presentation is to analyse parliamentarism and presidentialism in order to understand which one can be considered the best democratic political system.

2. DEVELOPMENT

A. PARLIAMENTARY REGIME

I’m going to show you why the parliamentary regime is better than the presidential one.

1 Abraham Lincoln, ​Gettysburg Address,​ November the 19th 1863

2 Héctor Fix-Fierro and Pedro Salazar-Ugarte, ​Presidentialism from ​The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law​, May 2012

3 John J. Patrick, ​Understanding democracy, a hip pocket guide,​ Oxford University Press, 2006

To do that, it’s first of all necessary, even if you know now the global definition of it, to present the main features of this regime.Then, I’ll focus on the pros of the parliamentary regime and the cons of the presidential one.

The main characteristics are as follows​.

In a parliamentary regime, the party (or congress of parties) with the most massive numbers in the parliament forms the government and the head of government is the majority party leader. Contrary to the presidential system, the parliamentary system creates a divide between the roles of Head of Government and Head of State (symbolic role, for ex monarchs or president).

The Head of government is the Prime Minister (or chancellor). He works with a group of advisers, often called ministers or the Cabinet (collectively) and they belong to the majority party of the parliament as they are appointed by them.

Moreover, a flexible separation of powers and a system of mutual dependence between the powers is what characterizes a pure parliamentary regime. On the one hand, the chief of the executive power must be supported by a majority in the legislature and can be, by vote of no confidence, moved out of office. On the other hand, the legislature can also be dissolved by the executive power which can call for new elections.The two powers work closely together in this system and thus are encouraged to collaborate.

The supremacy of the legislative branch, through a unicameral (one house) or bicameral (two houses) Parliament, is another feature of this system. Composed of members or representatives elected by citizens, its primary function is to create and pass laws. Then, these laws are signed by the Prime Minister, who doesn’t have veto power. In the case of disagreement, the Prime Minister can return a bill to Parliament. However, a majority vote by Parliament can veto that return. Thus, the legislature and executive are closely related to each other and share powers with each other.

There are monist parliamentary regimes where the government is accountable only to Parliament and dualist regimes where it is accountable to the head of state too.

These characteristics of the parliamentary system lead us to consider the advantages of the latter.

Indeed, it is not without reason that the parliamentary regime, originated in England in the 18th century, is the one in place in most Western democracies and economically overdeveloped countries, such as Great-Britain, Canada or Italy. There is one exception : the USA. But is a single exception, important as it is, sufficient to affirm that the parliamentary system is worse than the presidential ? Certainly not.

Alfred Stepan and Cindy Skach, two comparative ​political scientists and professors, showed in their Constitutional Frameworks and Democratic consolidation : Parliamentarism vs Presidentialism, with supporting data that pure parliamentarianism is more conducive to consolidation than pure presidentialism, that parliamentary democracies bring more freedom and facilitate economic and social restructuring. They also show that parliamentary democracies have a rate of survival more than three times higher than that of presidential democracies and that the (I quote) « return ratio » of ministers, (that is to say the % who serve more than once in their careers) is almost 3 times higher in parliamentary democracies than in presidential ones. Thus, parliamentarianism leads to more experienced politicians and to a more stable regime. This stability makes it possible to maintain order and to get

...