"Presidential vs. Parliamentary Democracy: A Debate"
In terms of stability and democratic values, parliamentarism is not the superior form of government. Parliamentarism lacks stability by sovereignty. Sovereignty leaves the power in the hand of Parliament without any checks or balances to ensure proper governing. Parliaments laws can fluctuate greatly according to whomever is in office, considering that there is no written constitution at times which describes there power, considering they have all the power there is no need for a description of it. The prime minister can be ousted if needed prematurely if his party lacks confidence in him. This vulnerability leaves a prime minister weak and easily swayable. In terms of democratic values a parliamentary system lacks the highest efficiency because of the lack of proportional representation in Parliament. Regardless of the exactly number of parties, a minority party would not hold enough seats to actually make a significant difference. Agreeing with Horowitz over Linz, one must remember and take into consideration the benefits and "functions that a separately elected president can perform for a divided society." Though parliamentarism is not superior, it does possess one characteristic, which can improve the United States system through the incorporation of consensus between legislature and the prime minister, in the U.S. Congress and the president. If the U.S. Congress could come more to a consensus with the president more laws would be passed in a more expedient measure. This consensus would halt blaming individual branches or people for inefficient measures or laws because of collective responsibility.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document