Introduction
The ways in which governments work and exercise power are crucial factors that have great implications on the stability, progress, and general well-being of the citizens. Out of these various systems of governance, the presidential and parliamentary models are the most common systems in the world. It is argued that although both systems share commonalities, the parliamentary system is more efficient because of its flexibility, legislative process, and the executive department’s accountability to the legislature. Through a study of the main attributes, advantages, and disadvantages of these government systems, and by way of illustrating their features with the examples of countries that each of them can characterize, this paper is aimed at proving the statement that the parliamentary system, despite its shortcomings, generally fulfills the needs of democracy more than the presidential one(Basnet, 2023).
Background of the Issue
The presidential and parliamentary systems represent two fundamentally distinct frameworks concerning the structure of executive power and its interplay with the legislative branch. As demonstrated by the United States, a presidential system operates under the principle of separation of powers wherein the President, who is elected autonomously from the legislature, functions as both the chief of state and Government. On the contrary, the parliamentary system, exemplified in the United Kingdom, elects a Prime Minister from the legislature to serve as the head of state. At the same time, an additional figure (typically a monarch or President) assumes the ceremonial role. Integrating the executive and the legislative branches is thought to facilitate the implementation of more integrated and efficient governance; nevertheless, it may raise concerns over the accumulation of power and the risk of abuse(Basnet, 2023).
Arguments
Flexibility and Responsiveness
Its main strengths are the parliamentary system’s responsiveness and adaptability to changing political environments. The Government is entrusted with the responsibility of protecting the confidence of the majority in the legislature. Thus, the amendments or reforms can be practiced quickly without the process of a prolonged and contention election. The capacity for parliamentary systems to promptly respond to crises or changes in public opinion is exemplified by the regular yet generally seamless transfers of power observed in nations such as the United Kingdom and Canada(Gerring et al., 2008).
The clearest and most illustrative of the adaptability and responsiveness of parliamentary systems to shifting political climates is their capacity to undergo government transitions without the unrest frequently associated with presidential systems. The foundation of this dynamism is the fundamental tenet to maintain power: the Government must maintain the confidence of the majority in the legislature. This stipulation guarantees that the Government mirrors prevailing political sentiments and facilitates a more prompt reaction to critical situations or substantial changes in public sentiment.
An exemplary illustration of such responsiveness can be found in the United Kingdom, specifically during political instability or when a ruling administration loses its legislative authority. As an illustration, in 2010, when no political party secured an absolute majority, a coalition government comprised of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats was swiftly formed. This arrangement ensured that the nation maintained an operational government that could effectively address the concerns of the electorate and the persistent financial crisis. In presidential systems, where terms are fixed, and an unpopular or ineffective leader remains in office until the next scheduled election, this flexibility stands in stark contrast(Gerring et al., 2008).
Similarly, the parliamentary system in Canada permits the convening of early elections in situations where the Government desires a new mandate from the people or loses the confidence of the House of Commons. In 2011, a motion of no confidence led to the dissolution of the Government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, which was subsequently replaced by elections that strengthened the Government’s mandate. These mechanisms emphasize the ability of the parliamentary system to synchronize governmental power with prevailing political conditions and public opinion, guaranteeing that governance continues to be pertinent, efficient, and representative of the will of the people.
Efficiency in Legislative Processes
The interconnection between the legislative and executive branches in parliamentary systems frequently leads to a more efficient procedure for implementing laws. A majority in the legislature typically results in reduced obstruction and expedited policy implementation by the Government. This efficacy is critical during critical situations that require immediate action(Ngan, 2023).
Political systems that employ parliamentary systems benefit greatly from the close integration of the executive and legislative branches. This integration guarantees that the Government, typically composed of the majority party or coalition in the legislature, can progress its legislative agenda with increased unity and reduced resistance. This streamlined process is especially advantageous in times of emergency or when prompt decision-making is critical.
United Kingdom’s 2008 response to the global financial crisis clearly demonstrates this development in action. Given the developing situation destabilizing the financial system and the economy at large, Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister, decided to implement a wide-ranging set of measures to bring back stability to the financial system. The Government injected large capital doses into the major institutions to keep the banking sector afloat, and the Bank of England provided liquidity support among the measures. The parliamentary system in which the British Government is based can pass such essential legislation quickly without the bickering and deadlock that characterize a presidential system(Ngan, 2023).
The parliamentary systems, including the one in New Zealand, proved during the COVID-19 pandemic their ability to institute legislative and policy measures quicker. In the struggle to curtail the transmission of the virus, the Government fast-tracked the passage of laws that required lockdowns, provided economic support to affected businesses and persons, and initiated public health programs. Their adeptness in such situations shows that parliamentary systems can effectively deal with emergent national issues. This shows that a more joined-up executive-legislative approach to enacting laws and implementing policies is preferable(Kumarasingham & Power, 2015).
Accountability and Checks on Power
One notable benefit of the parliamentary system is that the executive is held directly accountable to the legislature. The legislative confidence requirement places the Government under ongoing scrutiny and permits procedures like the vote of no confidence, which can remove a government from power if it cannot secure the support of the majority. Constant oversight is instrumental in averting power violations and ensuring that the government’s actions are by the legislative majority’s desires, thereby upholding democratic tenets.
In Australia, for instance, the parliamentary system permitted internal party decisions or a loss of confidence among party members in the Parliament to result in the replacement of incumbent prime ministers within the same party. In 2015, this was demonstrated when Malcolm Turnbull succeeded Tony Abbott as prime minister via a Liberal Party leadership ballot rather than a general election. The system’s adaptability is demonstrated by the capability to replace leaders without holding a general election, which guarantees that the Government maintains a strong alignment with prevailing political sentiments (Kumarasingham & Power, 2015).
A second instance is the United Kingdom. Prime Minister Theresa May tendered her resignation in 2019 after failing to garner backing for her Brexit agreement, exemplifying the direct responsibility to the legislature. The individual’s resignation served as an illustration of the accountability mechanisms inherent in the parliamentary system. Her failure to secure a majority for a significant legislative endeavor prompted a leadership transition that sought better synchronizing the Government with the legislative body’s objectives and, consequently, the public’s will.
These instances highlight the effectiveness of the parliamentary system in preventing power abuses and assuring government accountability through consistently reflecting the legislative majority’s will in executive actions; thus, it upholds democratic principles.
Conclusion
The parliamentary system could be better. However, it is the type of democracy that makes it very hard to surpass other governing systems as it is known for its adaptability, effectiveness in making legislation, and improved responsibility. These traits develop a governmental system capable of responding to changing political environments more efficiently, implementing policies more competently, and keeping the executive branch accountable to elected representatives. Despite the presidential system having positive features like the distinct separation of powers and the direct election of the head of the state, the parliamentary system, as shown by countries like the UK and Canada, is the most suitable for the creation of a government that is responsive to the people, efficient and accountable. The parliamentary system could be a better option in the search for a democratic form of governance that can truly represent the people.
References
Basnet, M. (2023, April). Presidential System vs. Parliamentary System. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370072682_Presidential_System_vs_Parliamentary_System
Gerring, J., Thacker, S. C., & Moreno, C. (2008). Are Parliamentary Systems Better? Comparative Political Studies, 42(3), 327–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414008325573
Kumarasingham, H., & Power, J. (2015). Constrained Parliamentarism: Australia and New Zealand compared. New Accountabilities, New Challenges. https://doi.org/10.22459/nanc.04.2015.06
Ngan, H. N. (2023, December). A COMPARISON BETWEEN AMERICAN AND BRITISH POLITICS (An assignment on British and American culture). http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.10802.38086
write