Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1


Ratings: (0)|Views: 58|Likes:
Published by mustikajulaiha

More info:

Published by: mustikajulaiha on Nov 07, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Advantages & Disadvantages of a Parliamentary SystemAdvantages of a parliamentary system
One of the commonly attributed advantages to parliamentary systems is that it¶s faster and easier to passlegislation.This is because the
executive branch
is dependent upon the direct or indirect support of the
legislative branch
and often includes members of thelegislature. Thus, this would amount to theexecutive (as the majority party or coalition of parties in the legislature) possessing more votes inorder to pass legislation.In a
presidential system
, the executive is often chosen independently from the legislature. If the
in such a system include members entirely or predominantly fromdifferent political parties, then stalemate can occur. Accordingly, the executive within a presidential system might not be able to properly implement his or her platform/manifesto.Evidently, an
in any system (be it parliamentary, presidential or semi-presidential) ischiefly voted into office on the basis of his or her party¶s platform/manifesto. It could be saidthen that the will of the people is more easily instituted within a
parliamentary system
.In addition to quicken legislative action,
has attractive features for nationsthat areethnically,racially, or ideologicallydivided. In a uni-personal
presidential system
, allexecutive power is concentrated in the president.In a
parliamentary system
, with a
collegial executive
, power is more divided. It can also beargued that power is more evenly spread out in the power structure of 
. The
 prime minister
seldom tends to have as high importance as a ruling
, and there tendsto be a higher focus on voting for a party and its political ideas than voting for an actual person.
has been praised for producing serious debates, for allowing the change in power without an election, and for allowing elections at any timeThe four-year election rule of the United States to be by some to be unnatural.There is also a body of scholarship, associated withJuan Linz,Fred Riggs,Bruce Ackerman, and Robert Dahlthat claims that
is less prone to
collapse. Thesescholars point out that sinceWorld War II, two-thirds of Third Worldcountries establishing
parliamentary governments
successfully made the transition to
. By contrast, noThird World
system successfully made the transition to
withoutexperiencingcoupsand other constitutional breakdowns.
 Criticisms of parliamentarianism
One main criticism and benefits of many
parliamentary systems
is that the
head of government
is in almost all cases not directly elected.In a
presidential system
, the
is usually chosen directly by the electorate, or by a set of electors directly chosen by the people, separate from the legislature. However, in a
parliamentary system
the prime minister is elected by the
, often under the stronginfluence of the
party leadership
. Thus, a party¶s candidate for the
head of government
isusually known before the election, possibly making the election as much about the person as the party behind him or her.Another major criticism of the
parliamentary system
lies precisely in its purported advantage:that there is
no truly independent body to oppose and veto
passed by the
, and therefore no substantial check on
legislative power
(seetyranny of themajority). Conversely, because of the lack of inherent
separation of powers
, some believe that a
parliamentary system
can place too much power in the
entity, leading to the feelingthat the
have little scope to administer checks or balances on the
. However,
parliamentary systems
may be
, with an upper house designedto check the power of the lower (from which the executive comes).Although it is possible to have a powerful
prime minister
, as Britain has, or even adominant party system, asJapanhas,
parliamentary systems
are also sometimes unstable. Critics
 point toIsrael,Italy,Canada, theFrench Fourth Republic, andWeimar Germanyas examples of 
parliamentary systems
where unstable coalitions, demanding minority parties,votes of noconfidence, and threats of such votes, make or have made effective governance impossible.Defenders of 
say that
instability is the result o
proportional representation
, political culture, and highly polarized
has been praised for allowing an election to take place at anytime, the lack of a definite election calendar can be abused.In some systems, such as the British, a ruling party can schedule elections when it feels that it islikely to do well, and so avoid elections at times of unpopularity. Thus, by wise timing of 
, in a
parliamentary system
a party can extend its rule for longer than is feasible in afunctioning
presidential system
. This problem can be alleviated somewhat by setting fixed datesfor 
elections, as is the case in several of Australia¶s state parliaments. In other systems, such as the Dutch and the Belgian, the ruling party or coalition has some flexibility indetermining the election date. Conversely, flexibility in the timing of 
parliamentary elections
 avoids having periods of legislative gridlock that can occur in a fixed period presidential system.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->