Parliamentary versus Presidential system

Jeremy Giesbrecht

300090805

POL 2104 – A00

Joseph Román

Due: December 3rd, 2018

 1

Many countries around the world have different methods and systems of governance.

These methods and systems can vary drastically from democratic to authoritarian, but many hold

similar attributes. An example of these attributes is a presidential or parliamentary form of

government. A presidential form of government focuses on the executive power being directly

elected by the people through an election. The executive branch and legislative branch are

entirely separated from one another. On the other hand, a parliamentary form of government

focuses on electing a legislative body who will in turn select the executive head – the executive

and legislative branches are fused. Presidential and parliamentary forms of government are

widely used around the world. All modern-day democratic political systems, be it parliamentary

or presidential republics to constitutional monarchies, bear some form of an elected executive

and legislative branch. Both systems share similar qualities but differ in how those qualities

interact with one another. From an objective point of view, we can see that they have significant

differences. Each has their own distinct positives and negatives; however, which system –

parliamentary or presidential – provides a more effective form of government in terms of

accountability to the people, the effectiveness of passing legislation and the maintenance of its

legitimacy? Although a presidential system allows for strong checks and balances, a

parliamentary system of government provides a more effective form of government because the

executive can be held strictly accountable; the executive branch works in tandem with the

legislative branch, aptly avoiding gridlock, and the government may be dissolved when it loses

the confidence of the House of Commons. This paper will mainly be written in the context of the

Canadian parliamentary system and the United States of America presidential system. First, this

paper will explore how the executive branch of the government is held more strictly accountable.

Second, this paper will examine the benefits of having the executive branch being fused with the
 2

legislative branch in a parliamentary democracy. Lastly, this paper will demonstrate the benefits

of dissolving parliament and triggering a new election.

In a parliamentary system, the Prime Minister and his or her ministers are held directly

accountable by the legislative – they must defend their decisions and policies before the House

of Commons constantly. (Weaver, 18) While the executive branch is made up of ministers and

the Prime Minister, they are all also members of parliament (MP) by convention and hold seats

in the legislative. Due to this dynamic, the MPs from opposing parties are given many

opportunities to question ministers and the Prime Minister directly on the actions they are taking

and the policies they are creating. In turn, the ministers and Prime Minister are responsible for

defending their decisions and answering the questions posed to them. This period in the House

of Commons, known as “Question Period”, is a form of holding the executive directly

accountable by the legislative. (Malcolmson et.al, 133) Question Period gives opposing MPs the

opportunity to be as critical of the government’s actions as they want in front of cameras,

resulting in a generally intense and powerful criticism period of the government’s policy.

Question Period is one of many methods that aid the legislative branch in holding the executive

accountable for their actions. Whatever the government decides to do, they must be prepared to

meet the criticism of the House of Commons head on unless they want to look ill prepared in

front of the nation.

In a presidential system, the president is not a member of the legislation and rarely

interacts in direct confrontation to that branch. This can result in indirect hearsay through the

media which may lead to distortions of decisions and actions actually made. The presidential

system waits on the legislative branch to create the legislation for the president to sign or veto.

The president may play a role in shaping the bill, but most of the work belongs to the legislative
 3

branch as lawmakers. (Gardbaum, 256-257) With this clear and distinct separation between the 2

branches, it is much harder to hold the president and his or her cabinet directly accountable,

especially since this process can be long and drawn out. Instead of Question Period, the House

of Representatives or Senate can call upon cabinet officials – members that the president

nominates whose appointments are approved or disapproved by the Senate – to testify before

committees about their actions, but never the president. (King and Riddlesperger, 274-275)

These House and Senate hearings are the most opportune time for the opposing party to publicly

criticize and ask questions of members of the executive branch.

In both systems of government, the opposing party or parties play a key role in insuring

the executive branch is held accountable. In a parliamentary system, the Official Opposition –

literally and figuratively across the aisle – has a shadow cabinet with MPs who would be each

cabinet Minister’s replacement if the Opposition became the governing party. (Michaud, 72) For

example, one of the Cabinet positions is Finance Minister, and since there is a Finance Minister,

there is also a finance critic who is part of the shadow government. The sole focus of that

finance critic is to criticize the wrongdoings made by the Finance Minister and develop a

working understanding of the role. If the Official Opposition wins the next election, then that

finance critic will become the next Finance Minister with a new finance critic to hound him. The

usage of a shadow cabinet and shadow ministers give the country an opportunity to see what the

alternative could look like. (Malcolmson et.al, 214) Ultimately, the opposing party or parties are

simply trying to convince the electorate that they would be a more viable alternative then the one

currently in power. This idea of a shadow cabinet is distinct in a parliamentary system due to the

convention that all cabinet members must also be an MP.

 4

In a presidential system, on the other hand, members of the president’s cabinet do not

have to have any prior government experience or hold a government position to be, for example,

secretary of state. Although if they are already in a political position at the time of their

appointment, they must resign it immediately according to Section 6, Article 1 of the

Constitution. (Lijphart, 73) Additionally, the opposing party does not have a shadow cabinet

ready and waiting to criticize the president’s cabinet. (Moe and Caldwell, 190) In terms of

accountability, the advantage a shadow cabinet offers is that it insures there is an MP who is

constantly observing each Minister and ready to criticize and question their actions at any

moment. In turn, this MP is developing a working understanding and is essentially learning

about the position themselves in hopes that their party wins the next election, and they assume

the role. This ability – for the executive to be held more strictly accountable in a parliamentary

system – is all due to the executive and the legislative branches being fused.

The unique characteristic of a parliamentary system, where the executive and legislative

branches are one and the same, allows the executive branch to introduce its own legislation to be

debated in Parliament. This unique characteristic allows the executive branch to be part of the

legislation making process. In effect, it is the executive branch and governing party who

generally presents the legislation before the House of Commons to be debated, amended and

passed; however, this depends on how much power the electorate has given the government.

(Malcolmson et.al, 13-14) If the ruling party has enough seats in the House of Commons to form

a majority then the governing party is able to pass their legislation, to be reviewed by the Senate,

without consulting the other parties. If the ruling government does not have a majority of seats

and is therefore a minority government, then they are forced to work with other parties to get

legislation through. This involves bipartisan work and compromise so that each side can agree
 5

on a piece of legislation. (Malcolmson et.al 47-48) With the executive branch being part of the

lawmaking process, they are afforded the opportunity to pass meaningful bills and maintain their

campaign promises. There is no disconnect between what the executive and legislative want

because the two branches are fused together and work in tandem. This relationship allows for

laws to be passed efficiently and be the laws that the executive branch desires.

In contrast, the presidential system has a clear divide between the executive and

legislative branches of government. Due to this divide, the president must rely on the legislative

branch to present to him or her bills to either be passed or vetoed. During former President

Barack Obama’s occupancy of office, one of his policy goals was to pass environmentally

friendly legislation. However, this was met with hostile opposition from a majority, Republican

controlled House of Representatives and Senate. Due to Congress’s unwillingness to work with

the executive branch, President Barack Obama had to rely on executive orders to pass his desired

policies. (Konisky and Woods, 367) Alternatively, had the Republican party passed

environmentally friendly legislation not up to the president’s standards, he simply would have

vetoed it, aptly causing a gridlock on that policy area. This highlights a clear issue with

presidential systems – if the executive and legislative branches are controlled by opposite parties

who are unwilling to compromise, then the government becomes ineffective. Although there are

ways to bypass such scenarios, the methods available are hard to achieve and delay the law-

making process. For example, the legislative branch has the power to override a presidential

veto, but it requires a two thirds majority vote – an almost impossible feat in any partisan

political system. (Guardian) In contrast, the president has at his or her disposal the ability to pass

executive orders. These orders function as law and do not require the legislative branch’s

approval; however, executive orders only remain in effect for as long as the president wants them
 6

to. If a new president from an opposing party is elected, it is very likely he or she will rescind

many of the executive orders made by their predecessors. (Bolton and Thrower, 650) Although

having these checks and balances in place ensures that no one branch of government may abuse

the power allocated to them, it allows for any legislation – positively or negatively impactful – to

be repealed, effectively dissolving any progress made.

A response to the criticism that the presidential system’s checks and balances allows for

gridlock to exist can be refuted by the fact that the electorate can replace the members of

Congress or the president in the next election. In a presidential system such as the United States,

an election occurs every 2 years. Members of the House enjoy a 2-year term, the president

enjoys a 4-year term and 8-year term limit and a member of the Senate a 6-year term. Due to

these term limits, elections will happen at least every 2 years creating a constant change in

government. If deadlock should occur, it will not be for long. While this response is valid and

presents a solution to deal with government not acting efficiently, 2 years can allow for many in-

placed policies to affect the governed society in a long-lasting manner. In contrast, a

parliamentary government almost never experiences gridlock, its either the governing party has a

majority in the House of Commons and is using that majority to pass legislation, the governing

party has a minority in the House of Commons and is working with other parties to pass

legislation or the governing party has lost the confidence of the House of Commons and the

Prime Minister is replaced or a new election is called. (Malcolmson et.al, 41-42)

Losing the confidence of the House of Commons means that a majority of the MPs

believe the governing party is no longer fit to rule and a new election should begin, or the Prime

Minister should resign and be replaced. (Malcolmson et.al, 41-42) This is only possible if the

governing party is a minority government, unless members of the governing party break rank.
 7

Losing the confidence of the House of Commons leads to immediate change in either the

executive or the entire legislative. If the Prime Minister resigns and new leadership is

established, the legislative branch has a new executive branch to work with and possibly regain

the confidence of the House of Commons. If the Prime Minister does not wish to resign, the

only other option is to call for an election and see whether the voters will support his or her party

and vote more of his or her MPs in or rebuke the Prime Minister and vote for another party in its

place. Instead of a maximum of 2 years passing before a new opportunity for change to come –

as seen in a presidential system – the parliamentary system offers an immediate solution,

allowing the voters to decide who should receive the next mandate immediately.

Maintaining the confidence of the House of Commons isn’t solely to ensure that there is

no gridlock – it also functions as a tool to remove ineffective leadership. Whilst ineffective

leadership can be dealt with by the House of Commons, it can also be dealt with by the

governing party internally. For example, Australia enjoys a parliamentary system of government

in which it has not had a Prime Minister serve out his or her 3-year term since 2007. To go even

further, Australia has had 5 Prime Ministers in the past 5 years. (Dobell, 122) The current, and

fifth Prime Minister of the past 5 years, is Scott Morrison; he was elected internally by the

Liberal Party in a bid to replace then Prime Minister Scott Turnball. Whilst Australia has

changed Prime Ministers many times in the past decade, not once was it from losing the

confidence of the House of Commons. Instead, it all occurred internally when the members of

the governing party had opposing views. In Australia’s case, the ruling Liberal Party is

experiencing an internal struggle between the conservative wing, led by former Prime Minister

Tony Abbot, and the moderate wing, led by former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnball. Before

being replaced himself, former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnball had been the one to replace
 8

then Prime Minister Tony Abbot, and before that it was Tony Abbott who had replaced then

Opposition leader Malcolm Turnball. (Dobell, 122) These sorts of infighting within parties can

occur a lot and lead to multiple leader changes. Unlike the president, the prime minister can be

changed without finishing his or her term, severely mitigating the effects of ineffective

leadership.

In a presidential system, the president has a 4-year term with no ability to be replaced or

disposed unless they are impeached by the legislative branch. No president in the United States

of America has ever been successfully removed from office besides former President Richard

Nixon who voluntarily resigned following the Watergate scandal. (Olson 20) Aside from being

removed from office, only two presidents have ever been impeached by the House – Andrew

Johnson and Bill Clinton. Both were charged with high crimes and misdemeanors, but neither

were found guilty by the Senate. (Sunstein, 294) There is the possibility of the president being

replaced by section 4 of the 25th amendment of the United States Constitution – if the 15

“principal officers of the executive departments” believe he or she is unfit to lead, then the vice

president will assume the role of president, but that, like a president being successfully removed

from office, has never happened. (Kalt, 1) Compared to a parliamentary system, it is difficult to

remove the executive from office in a presidential system. While this results in a more stable

political atmosphere and not one of chaos – such as in Australia – the point of an ineffective

leader remaining in office still stands. A parliamentary system offers the governing party

relatively simple options with how to deal with an ineffective leader. It can result with a

challenger from within the party to vie for the role of Prime Minister or MPs joining the

opposing parties in beginning a vote of non-confidence. A parliamentary system offers a road to

 9

replace the executive without having to put them on trial for committing crimes; instead, they are

replaced simply because they don’t align with the party vision or are ineffective as a leader.

A parliamentary system of government is held more strictly by the legislative because

the executive leader, the Prime Minister, and his Ministers are also MPs – by convention – who

sit in the House of Commons as well. This allows the opposition parties to field questions and

criticize the government during “Question Period”. In return, the governing party must defend

their choices and actions by answering questions fielded to them and rebuking the criticism in a

direct manner. In a presidential system, the executive leader, the president, and his Cabinet, are

not members of the legislative and do not have to constantly defend their actions or decisions and

field their questions. Due to the legislative and the executive being fused, an extra layer of

accountability is added as MPs representing their districts are given a distinct opportunity to

publicly hold the governing party responsible. The legislative and executive branches being

fused also allows for more effective lawmaking; the executive is able to craft and present

legislation that they themselves desire to pass. In a presidential system, the president must rely

on the House and Senate to present to him or her legislation to either be passed or vetoed. If the

House and Senate are hostile towards the President than little to nothing can be achieved for at

least 2 years, save through executive orders. However, executive orders only last for as long as

each President decides to maintain them, and they do not all have the same opinion. In contrast,

gridlock in a parliamentary system can never exist because the governing party must work to

maintain the confidence of the House of Commons. If the governing party loses the confidence

of the House, then either the Prime Minister resigns or an election is called. Gridlock is easily

avoided and possible ineffective leadership dealt with. Having a system in place which allows
 10

for the quick removal and replacement of ineffective leaders shows how the parliamentary

system of government solidifies its legitimacy as a better governing body.

Both parliamentary and presidential systems are effective systems that many democracies

use today. However, the parliamentary system provides a more effective form of government

because the executive branch is held more strictly accountable by the legislative branch; the

executive and the legislative branches are fused, and the government can be dissolved at any

time, effectively ending potential gridlock. In a presidential system, dealing with ineffective

leadership is challenging; whilst presidents can be removed from office, it has never happened.

In comparison, a country that practices the parliamentary system such as Australia is constantly

replacing ineffective Prime Ministers to the point where none have served their 3-year terms in

the past decade. A parliamentary system of government allows for the legislative to hold the

executive accountable – it allows for the executive to pass laws it desires while avoiding gridlock

and ineffective leadership which can be dealt with either internally or through the House of

Commons. All in all, although both systems are not nearly perfect and have their respective

flaws, the fact that they still exist today speaks volumes of their effectiveness as systems of

governments.
 11

Works Cited

Bolton, Alexander, and Sharece Thrower. “Legislative Capacity and Executive Unilateralism.”

American Journal of Political Science, vol. 60, no. 3, 20 July 2015, pp. 649–663.,

doi:10.1111/ajps.12190.

Dobell, G. (2018). TURNBULL TUMBLES, TRUMP MATESHIP, CHINA FROST.

Comparative Connections, 20(2), 121-130. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-

com.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/docview/2127156653?accountid=14701

Gardbaum, Stephen. “Political Parties, Voting Systems, and the Separation of Powers.” The

American Journal of Comparative Law, vol. 65, no. 2, 1 June 2017, pp. 229–264.,

doi:https://doi-org.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/10.1093/ajcl/avx030.

Hinojosa, Victor J., and Aníbal S. Pérez-Liñán. “Presidential Survival and the Impeachment

Process: The United States and Colombia.” Political Science Quarterly (Academy of

Political Science), vol. 121, no. 4, Winter2006/2007 2006, pp. 653–675. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=23680303&site=ehost-live.

Kalt, Brian C. "The 25th Amendment? Forget it." Wall Street Journal, May 19, 2017. ProQuest,

https://search-proquest-

com.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/docview/1899977146?accountid=14701.

King, James D., and James W. Riddlesperger. “Senate Confirmation of Cabinet Nominations:

Institutional Politics and Nominee Qualifications.” The Social Science Journal, vol. 33,

no. 3, Jan. 1996, pp. 273–285., doi:10.1016/s0362-3319(96)90023-3.

Lijphart, Arend. Parliamentary Versus Presidential Government. Oxford University Press, 1992.
 12

Malcolmson, Patrick, et al. The Canadian Regime: An Introduction to Parliamentary

Government in Canada. University of Toronto Press, 2016.

Michaud, Nelson. “Designating the Official Opposition in a Westminster Parliamentary

System.” The Journal of Legislative Studies, vol. 6, no. 4, 2000, pp. 69–90.,

doi:10.1080/13572330008420640.

Moe, Terry M., and Michael Caldwell. “The Institutional Foundations of Democratic

Government: A Comparison of Presidential and Parliamentary Systems.” Journal of

Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE) / Zeitschrift Für Die Gesamte

Staatswissenschaft, vol. 150, no. 1, 1994, pp. 171–195. JSTOR, JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/40753031.

Olson, Tod. “The Fall of a President.” Scholastic Update, vol. 129, no. 14, May 1997, p. 18-

20. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9709071454&site=ehost-

live.

"Senate fails to pass bill to override Obama's Keystone XL pipeline veto; Republicans needed

two-thirds of the Senate to defeat the president's veto, but were unable to win over five

additional Democrats." Guardian [London, England], 4 Mar. 2015. Academic OneFile,

http://link.galegroup.com.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/apps/doc/A404011431/AONE?u=otta779

73&sid=AONE&xid=02376921. Accessed 3 Dec. 2018.

Sunstein, Cass R. “Impeaching the President.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol. 147,

no. 2, Dec. 1998, pp. 279–315. EBSCOhost, doi:10.2307/3312833.

 13

Weaver, R. Kent. “Are Parliamentary Systems Better?” The Brookings Review, vol. 3, no. 4,

1985, pp. 16–25. JSTOR, JSTOR, doi:10.2307/20079894.