9.1 Comparing Political Systems: Parliamentary vs. Presidential

Political systems shape how governments function and make decisions. Parliamentary and presidential systems differ in their executive-legislative relationships, accountability mechanisms, and overall structure. These differences impact policy implementation, stability, and the balance of power within governments.

Comparing these systems helps us understand how different countries approach governance. By examining their strengths and weaknesses, we can better evaluate the effectiveness of various political structures and their ability to address the needs of diverse populations.

Parliamentary vs Presidential Systems

Executive-Legislative Relationship

Top images from around the web for Executive-Legislative Relationship

• 

  Federalism: Basic Structure of Government | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches of Government by Teachability View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Development of the Constitution | American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Federalism: Basic Structure of Government | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches of Government by Teachability View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Executive-Legislative Relationship

• 

  Federalism: Basic Structure of Government | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches of Government by Teachability View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Development of the Constitution | American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Federalism: Basic Structure of Government | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches of Government by Teachability View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Parliamentary systems fuse executive and legislative powers
  • Prime Minister chosen from and accountable to legislature
  • Allows for more direct government control over policy implementation
• Presidential systems separate executive and legislative branches
  • President elected independently of legislature
  • Creates clearer division of responsibilities between branches
• Head of government and head of state roles differ
  • Parliamentary systems typically separate these roles (Prime Minister and monarch/ceremonial president)
  • Presidential systems combine roles in office of President
• Government formation process varies
  • Parliamentary systems allow flexible formation, often resulting in coalitions
  • Presidential systems have fixed terms for executive, regardless of legislative composition

Legislative Control and Government Stability

• Vote of no confidence exists in parliamentary systems
  • Legislature can remove executive through this mechanism
  • Provides ongoing accountability but can lead to government instability
• Presidential systems lack no-confidence votes
  • Fixed terms provide stability but can result in "lame duck" periods
  • Impeachment serves as a high-bar removal process for serious offenses
• Term lengths and election timing differ
  • Parliamentary elections often called at government's discretion (within limits)
  • Presidential elections occur on fixed schedule (4-year terms in US, 6-year terms in Mexico)

Advantages and Disadvantages of Systems

Efficiency and Policy Implementation

• Parliamentary systems often demonstrate greater legislative efficiency
  • Fusion of powers allows for faster policy implementation
  • Government controls legislative agenda, reducing gridlock
• Presidential systems may face implementation challenges
  • Separation of powers can lead to gridlock between branches
  • Divided government (different parties controlling executive and legislature) common
• Policy consistency varies between systems
  • Parliamentary systems risk policy instability with frequent government changes
  • Presidential systems maintain more consistent policies due to fixed terms

Accountability and Checks and Balances

• Parliamentary accountability more direct and frequent
  • Regular parliamentary debates and question periods
  • Prime Minister faces opposition leader in direct confrontations
• Presidential accountability exercised differently
  • Periodic elections serve as main accountability mechanism
  • Impeachment process for extreme cases of misconduct
• Checks and balances vary in strength
  • Presidential systems have stronger formal checks between branches
  • Parliamentary systems rely more on informal checks (media scrutiny, opposition parties)

Stability and Crisis Management

• Parliamentary systems offer flexibility in political crises
  • Can quickly form new governments without elections
  • Allows for adaptation to changing political landscapes
• Presidential systems provide executive stability
  • Fixed terms ensure continuity regardless of legislative changes
  • Can lead to prolonged periods of ineffective leadership if president loses support
• Coalition dynamics impact stability
  • Parliamentary systems often require coalition-building, risking fragile governments
  • Presidential systems avoid coalition necessity but may struggle with bipartisanship

Political Culture and System Choice

Historical and Colonial Influences

• Colonial legacies shape system preferences
  • Former British colonies often adopt parliamentary systems (India, Canada)
  • Former Spanish or Portuguese colonies favor presidential systems (Mexico, Brazil)
• Authoritarian history impacts choices
  • Countries with autocratic pasts may choose presidential systems for strong central figure (Russia)
  • Others opt for parliamentary systems to prevent concentration of power (Germany post-WWII)

Cultural Values and Governance Preferences

• Consensus-oriented cultures lean towards parliamentary systems
  • Emphasizes coalition-building and compromise (Netherlands, Belgium)
  • Accommodates diverse interests in multi-party systems
• Cultures valuing strong leadership favor presidential systems
  • Provides clear figurehead for national unity (United States, France)
  • Allows for more decisive executive action in times of crisis

Diversity and Regional Considerations

• Ethnic and linguistic diversity influences system choice
  • Parliamentary systems seen as more accommodating to diverse groups (India)
  • Federal presidential systems can balance regional interests (United States)
• Regional political trends impact decisions
  • Newly independent states often emulate successful neighbors
  • Regional powers may influence nearby countries' choices (Russian influence in Central Asia)

Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Roles

Executive Powers and Accountability

• Parliamentary executives derived from legislature
  • Prime Minister and cabinet members typically sitting legislators
  • Face regular scrutiny through question periods and debates
• Presidential executives independently elected
  • President appoints cabinet members (often requiring legislative approval)
  • More insulated from day-to-day legislative oversight

Legislative Authority and Lawmaking

• Parliamentary legislatures hold significant lawmaking power
  • Government (executive) introduces most legislation
  • Strong party discipline ensures passage of government bills
• Presidential system legislatures more independent
  • Members of Congress introduce many bills
  • President has veto power as check on legislative branch

Judicial Independence and Appointments

• Judicial independence maintained in both systems
  • Courts interpret laws and constitution regardless of system
• Appointment processes differ
  • Parliamentary systems often involve more legislative input (UK Supreme Court)
  • Presidential systems may grant executive more appointment power (US Supreme Court)