Presidential and Parliamentary Form of Government

Comparative Legal System

Faculty in Charge

Mr. Partha Pratim Medhi

Submitted by

Krishna Ahuja

SM0118069

1st Year and 2nd Semester

National Law University, Assam

0
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1LITERATURE REVIEW
1.2SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
1.3RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1.4RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
2. PRESIDENTIAL AND PARLIAMENTARY FORM OF
GOVERNMENT
3. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PARLIAMENTARY AND
PRESIDENTIAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT
4. THE SEPERATION OF POWERS-WHY IS IT NECESSARY?
5. CONCLUSION
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY

1
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

A government is the organization, machinery, or agency, through which a political unit

exercises its authority, controls and administers public policy, and directs and controls the
actions of its members or subjects . The government makes laws, regulate economies, conduct
relations with other countries, provide infrastructure and services, and maintain an army and a
police force amongst others on behalf of the people of the country. Democracy is any system
of government in which the people have the rule. The ancient Greeks used the word democracy
to mean government by the many in contrast to government by the few. They key of democracy
is that the people hold ultimate power. Abraham Lincoln best captured this spirit by describing
democracy as a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Democratic
government is opposed to an authoritative government, where the participation of its citizenry
is limited or prohibited, and a state of anarchy where no form of government exists. Over the
years there has been a dramatic growth in the number of political regimes that meet basic
standards of procedural democracy. Such procedures include freedom of association and
expression, competitive elections that determines who holds political power, and systematic
constraints on the exercise of authority.The establishment of democracy in countries with no
prior democratic experience, its re-establishment in countries that had experienced periods of
authoritarian rule, and the expansion in the number of independent states following the demise
of European and Soviet communism led to the adoption of democracy in most countries. As a
result of these changes, attention has been focused on constitutional rules that guide
competition for and the exercise of political authority under democracy. Democratic
governments are those that permit the nation’s citizens to manage their government either
directly or through elected representatives. This is opposed to authoritarian governments that
limit or prohibit the direct participation of its citizens. One of the fundamental aspects of
constitutional design is the choice between presidential government, parliamentary government
and a hybrid system that combines some aspects of these two. A main difference between the
presidential and the parliamentary systems of governance is as a result of how that states
executive, legislative and judiciary organs are organized.

The United States (US) has a presidential system, as do countries it has influenced regionally,
culturally or militarily [3] . With the exception of the US, presidential systems in the past have
often been associated with politically unstable and authoritarian regimes. Countries that have

2
adopted a form of the parliamentarianism include the United Kingdom (UK), much of
continental Europe, Israel, Japan, many of the former British colonies in Africa and Asia, and
most Caribbean countries. The French hybrid system has provided a model for a number of
countries. Countries that have adopted the French model in West Africa include Cote D’Ivoire,
Gabon, Mali and Senegal. A few states, such as Ghana, Poland, Bulgaria and Portugal also
have a hybrid system, with similar elements as the French model. The purpose of this paper is
to discuss some of the differences between the presidential and parliamentary systems of
governance with a view to recommending a system for Ghana. The paper has been structured
to focus on the separation of powers, the procedure of removal from office and the functions
of legislative. The Party discipline and the current system of governance in Ghana have also
been discussed. The paper assumes that democracy is the best form of governance for Ghana.

LITERATURE REVIEW

 Verma G, Parliamentary Versus Presidential System Of Government Hardcover –

Import, Dec 2010 By G. L. Verma (Author) (2010)

The declining trends in over six decades working of Parliamentary system of government in
India has thrown open a debate as to whether it has lived up to the expectations of the founding
fathers of the Constitution. Drawn from the system prevailing in U.K. for centuries and based
upon the working of legislatures prior to Independence, Parliamentary system was considered
to be the best suited for the existing geo-political conditions of India. However, trends like
dynastic politics, multiplicity of political parties, voters apathy, instability, adoption of dubious
means to form government, absence of healthy debates, pandemonium, boycott, absenteeism,
lack of quorum, skyrocketing cost of Parliamentary proceedings, bypassing of Parliament,
electoral malpractices, poor polling, criminalization of politics, etc. have crept into the working
of the Parliamentary system.
The fact that dynastic politics has flourished in India with every politician trying hard to see
his sons and daughters occupying constitutional positions regardless of their merit or
credentials is certainly a bad omen for the democratic set-up of the country. It seems as if the
criteria have changed from caliber to family affiliation. In fact, the entire polity is in a state of
transition from democracy to oligarchy and the day is not far, if the trend continues, when
politics will become the monopoly of a few families.

3
Parliamentary versus Presidential System of Government is an attempt to analyse all aspects
relating to the persistent trends in Indian politics, its impact on the working of Parliamentary
system and to find out whether the Presidential form of government with separation of powers
can provide panacea for the political ills. It is based on a deep analysis of present political
scenario, report of National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution and the
working of Presidential system in nearly 20 countries. The book shall be useful to the students
and teachers of Political Science, analysts, lawyers and legislators.

 Lijphart A, Parliamentary Versus Presidential Government (Oxford Readings In

Politics And Government) Paperback – Import, 20 Feb 1992 (1992)

Parliamentary and presidential government, exemplified by the United Kingdom and most
continental European countries on the one hand and the United States and Latin America on
the other, are the two principal forms of democracy in the modern world. Their respective
advantages and disadvantages have long been debated, at first mainly by British and American
political observers, but with increasing frequency in other parts of the world too, especially in
Latin America and Asia. The recent world-wide wave of democratization has intensified both
the debate and its significance. This volume brings together the most important statements on
the subject, by advocates and analysts from Montesquieu and Madison to Lipset and Linz. It
also treats the merits of less frequently used democratic types, such as French-style semi-
presidentialism, that may be regarded as intermediate forms between parliamentarism and
presidentialism.

SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES

The scope of this project is limited to the study of the separation of powers in president and
parliamentary form of government.

The objectives are mentioned below: -

 To study about the presidential and parliamentary form of government.

 To study the differences between parliamentary and presidential form of government.
 To study about the separation of powers in presidential and parliamentary form of
government.

4
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
 What are the presidential and parliamentary form of government?
 What are the differences between parliamentary and presidential form of government?
 What is the meaning of separation of powers in presidential and parliamentary form
of government?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this project doctrinal research was involved. Doctrinal Research is a research in which
secondary sources are used and materials are collected from libraries, archives, etc. Books,
journals, articles were used while making this project.

5
 CHAPTER 2

Presidential and Parliamentary form of government

SEPARATION OF POWERS

Key differences among the three systems (presidential, parliamentary and hybrid) include the
extent to which the powers of government are separated functionally between branches, and in
the powers one branch does or does not have over another. These include the extent, to which
the executive can control the legislative branch, or the extent to which the legislature can
control the executive (oversight), and the extent to which the legislative branch controls the
capacity to legislate. One important area of control and competition is the capacity to introduce
and approve legislation, and these vary considerably among the three systems.1

In a presidential system, political and administrative powers are divided between the executive,
legislative and judicial branches. Officials in these branches serve different terms of office and
different constituencies. In a parliamentary system, Parliament is sovereign and executive
authority (exercised by the Prime Minister and Cabinet) is derived from the legislature. In a
hybrid system, executive power is shared between a separately elected President and a Prime
Minister.

Presidential Government- In a presidential system, the President (who is the chief executive
as well as the symbolic head of government) is chosen by a separate election from that of the
legislature. The President is elected directly by the people and is answerable to the voters. The
President then appoints his or her cabinet of ministers (or “secretaries” in US parlance).
Ministers/Secretaries usually are not simultaneously members of the legislature, although their
appointment may require the advice and consent of the legislative branch. Because the senior
officials of the executive branch are separately elected or appointed, the presidential political
system is characterised by a separation of powers, wherein the executive and legislative
branches are independent of one another. Presidents have great control over their cabinet
appointees who serve at the President’s pleasure, and who are usually selected for reasons other
than the extent of their congressional support (as in parliamentary systems). In contrast, the
British Prime Minister is more constrained to represent his/her parliamentary party in the

1
'The Presidential And Parliamentary Governance Forms' (Lawteacher.net, 2019)
<https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/the-presidential-and-parliamentary-
governance-forms-administrative-law-essay.php> accessed 5 April 2019.

6
Cabinet. The US represents the strongest form of presidentialism, in the sense that the powers
of the executive and legislative branches are separate, and legislatures often have significant
powers.

Parliamentary Government- Parliamentary systems, unlike presidential systems, are typified

by a fusion of powers between the legislative and executive branches. The Prime Minister (who
is the chief executive) may be elected to the legislature in the same way that all other members
are elected. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party that wins the majority of votes to the
legislature (either de facto, or in some cases through an election held by the legislature). The
Prime Minister is a member of Parliament and is directly responsible to that body. The Prime
Minister appoints Cabinet Ministers.2 However, unlike in the presidential systems, these
members are typically themselves legislative members from the ruling party or ruling coalition.
Thus, in a parliamentary system, the constituency of the executive and legislature are the same.
If the ruling party is voted out of the legislature, the executive also changes. Continued co-
operation between the executive and legislature is required for the government to survive and
to be effective in carrying out its programs. In a parliamentary system, the legislature holds
supreme power. Parliamentary systems are characterized by no clear-cut separation of powers
between the executive and legislative branches, leading to a different set of checks and balances
compared to those found in presidential systems.3 Parliamentary systems usually have a clear
differentiation between the head of government and the head of state, with the head of
government being the prime minister or premier, and the head of state often being a figurehead,
often either a president (elected either popularly or by the parliament) or a hereditary monarch
(often in a constitutional monarchy).

LEGISLATIVE – EXECUTIVE TERMS AND REMOVAL FROM OFFICE

A key difference between presidential and parliamentary systems lies in the power to remove
a chief executive or to dissolve the legislature. In parliamentary systems, the chief executive’s

2
'The Separation Of Powers – Why Is It Necessary?' (Parlament.gv.at, 2019)
<https://www.parlament.gv.at/ENGL/PERK/PARL/POL/ParluGewaltenteilung/index.shtml> accessed 5 April
2019.
33
'The Presidential And Parliamentary Governance Forms' (Lawteacher.net, 2019)
<https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/the-presidential-and-parliamentary-
governance-forms-administrative-law-essay.php> accessed 5 April 2019.

7
term of office is directly linked to that of the legislature, while in presidential systems the terms
are not linked.

Presidential Government- In a presidential system, in line with the notion of a separation of

powers, presidents and members of the legislature are separately elected for a given length of
time. Presidents have no authority to remove members of the legislature. Premature removal
of either legislative members or the President can only be initiated by a vote in the lower
legislative chamber and under particular conditions. Thus, under normal circumstances, even
if the political party that the President represents becomes a minority in either or both houses
of the legislature, the President will remain in his position for the full term for which he was
elected. A number of Latin American presidential systems have provided an additional
constitutional check on the power of the President in this regard, likely due to a history of
authoritarian executive rule. For example, in Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama and
Paraguay, a President is not allowed to serve more than one elected term. In other countries,
including Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala and the US, the President is not allowed to serve
for more than two consecutive terms.4

Parliamentary Government

In a parliamentary system, the Prime Minister can be removed from office in two ways. The
first is through a ‘no-confidence’ motion, which is typically filed by the opposition or a
coalition of opposition parties. The no confidence motion calls for a vote in the legislature to
demonstrate that the legislature no longer has confidence in the Prime Minister (the Chief
Executive) and his cabinet of Ministers. If the vote passes by a majority, the Executive,
including the Prime Minister, is forced to step down. Since the Prime Minister and his cabinet
of ministers are members of the legislature, this brings about new legislative elections. The
term of the Prime Minister, therefore, is generally linked to that of the rest of the legislature.

Secondly, the Prime Minister can be removed by his/her own party members, in a setting
outside of the legislature. For example, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was removed by
party vote and replaced by John Major during the Conservative Party caucus [5] . Such a
removal, whereby the party decides to change its leader, does not force legislative elections.

4
'The Presidential And Parliamentary Governance Forms' (Lawteacher.net, 2019)
<https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/the-presidential-and-parliamentary-
governance-forms-administrative-law-essay.php> accessed 5 April 2019

8
LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION

In parliamentary, presidential and hybrid systems, the legislative body discusses political,
economic and social issues and is required to legitimize new laws. One of the major differences
of these systems lies in the legislature’s power (or lack thereof) to formulate and initiate
legislation.

Presidential Government

In a presidential system, the legislature formulates its own agenda and passes its own bills. The
legislature typically formulates and introduces legislation. The legislature can and often work
closely with the executive branch in formulating legislation, particularly when the same party
is in power in both branches. The executive can draft laws, but members of the legislature must
introduce them on the floor. Some presidential systems, however, limit the legislature’s power
to amend the proposed executive budget, and a president may force the legislature to act on
legislation within a certain period. Some characteristics of a legislative function in a
presidential system or governance are as follows:

The legislature tends to have broad powers to amend any legislation. However, lack of
resources and other factors may act to blunt this power. In some countries, like Mexico during
the period of one-party domination, the President effectively controlled the Congress’
lawmaking function.5 The potential for legislative assertiveness is greater in presidential
systems, but the actual realization depends on the presence of other conditions. Legislatures in
presidential systems are more likely to have specialized and permanent standing committees
and subcommittees with a number of professional staff to help draft, review and amend
legislation. Large congressional staffs in the United States came about in the post World War
II (WWII) years, with the greatest growth in the sixties and seventies. Staff and other resources
are typically much greater in the U.S. presidential system than in the Latin American or other
presidential models. Via the committee system, the legislature has extensive powers to call
expert witnesses, members of the cabinet, presidential advisors, etc. for public or private
hearings before the legislature. The President can veto legislation, which can only be
overridden by a two-third vote in the legislature.

5
The India, 'Differences Between Parliamentary And Presidential Form Of Governments' (Thehansindia.com)
<https://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/Hans/2017-08-21/Differences-between-Parliamentary-and-
Presidential-form-of-governments/320681> accessed 5 April 2019.

9
Parliamentary Government

In parliamentary systems, the executive (meaning the Prime Minister, cabinet and bureaucracy)
controls the legislative agenda, and individual legislators have little political power to introduce
their own legislative initiatives. Characteristics of a legislative function in a parliamentary
system are as follows: -

The chief executive and his/her cabinet initiate any piece of legislation affecting the budget or
revenue. In the UK and other similar models, legislatures can only amend legislation on narrow,
technical terms.

There are significantly fewer permanent or standing committees with relatively few
professional staff to help draft and review legislation. (There are exceptions – Germany’s semi-
parliamentary system has relatively strong committees where legislation can be initiated,
reviewed and amended by individual members. Australia has a larger staff system than does
the UK). Important policy decisions can and often are made at party caucuses rather than within
committees.6

PARTY DISCIPLINE

Party discipline, refers to the practice where legislators vote with their parties. Party discipline
is typically stronger in parliamentary systems than in presidential. This is because the
“executive” government requires majority party cohesiveness for its own survival. In countries
that are transitioning to a two or multiparty system whether presidential, hybrid or
parliamentary, party discipline may be generally weak owing to the fact that parties may be
newer, lack a strong internal structure and constituent base and/or lack experience in operating
in a multiparty legislature.

Presidential Government

Parties in presidential systems tend to be less structured than parties in parliamentary systems.
Failure to vote with one’s party does not threaten to bring the government down. Therefore,
members of the legislature are freer to identify with regional, ethnic, economic or other

6
'The Presidential And Parliamentary Governance Forms' (Lawteacher.net, 2019)
<https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/the-presidential-and-parliamentary-
governance-forms-administrative-law-essay.php> accessed 5 April 2019.

10
divisions when considering policy issues. Because they are usually directly elected and
identifiable with particular districts or regions, many members see a duty to their constituents
(in a district or state) as the first priority, with allegiance to a party and its platform as
secondary. While the legislators are under some pressure to vote with their party, particularly
on important votes, the consequences of not doing so are not as serious to the individual
legislator and to the system. Legislatures and executives are elected separately and often for
different terms, it is therefore not uncommon for them to be controlled by different parties.

Parliamentary Government

Parliamentary systems in developed countries are characterized by parties that are highly
structured and tend toward unified action, block voting and distinct party platforms. This party
discipline is required in parliamentary systems primarily because deviation from the party line
could result in bringing down the government. Parliamentary systems require that the
“executive” and legislative members come to agreement upon issues, lest it forces the
dissolution of the government. In addition, majority parties in parliamentary systems are
perceived by voters to have a mandate to run the country. Therefore, each party may develop
a system of punishments and rewards. Individual members of the legislature who deviate from
a party vote may be punished by exclusion from their party within parliament or may not be
nominated by the party in the subsequent election.

Similarly, opposition parties theoretically want to maximize their power in a system dominated
by the majority by voting as a block and squelching internal dissent. Opposition party discipline
is more likely if the party or parties perceive that they can eventually gain the majority.
Consequently, for both majority and minority parties in parliament, important policy decisions
are made within party structures, such as party caucuses, rather than within the legislature itself.
Obviously, it is not possible for the legislature and executive to be controlled by different
parties in a parliamentary system.

The following are common attributes of the two systems based on party discipline:

Advantages of weaker party discipline in presidential systems:

Relations between individual members and constituents tend to be stronger.

The President and individual members are directly accountable to the voters.

11
In deeply divided societies, some theorists argue that the parliamentary system can lead to one
party controlling the state and locking other ethnic or regional groups out of power.

Advantages of stronger party discipline in parliamentary systems:

Parties and stable party coalitions within parliament can be held accountable to the public based
on their promotion of the party platform.

The chief executive can be made accountable to his/her party and the parliament as a whole by
a vote of no confidence at any time.

Highly organized parties can act as a link between party leaders and constituents at local levels.

Evolution of the Hybrid System of Governance in Ghana

Ghana, from Independence to date, has evolved through the presidential system of governance,
the parliamentary system and currently is practising a hybrid system of governance. In 1957,
the Independence Constitution introduced a parliamentary system under which the Prime
Minister and all Ministers of State were Members of Parliament. The Members of Parliament
were elected on party lines. This system was practiced between 1957 and 1960 (first Republic)
and again between 1969 and 1972 (second Republic). In the 1960 Republican Constitution, an
Executive President and a Parliament consisting of a President and National Assembly were
introduced. The Executive President was not a Member of Parliament but Ministers of State
were appointed from among the MPs. The Ministers had to sit in Parliament while at the same
time deal with matters that fell under their portfolios. The 1979 Constitution (third Republic)
provided for a presidential system of government where the President, Vice-President,
Ministers of State and their Deputies were not Members of Parliament. [7] This system
followed the US system, but had a single chamber legislature.7

The Parliaments of all three Republics had their own weaknesses. In the first Republic, this
included the concentration of power in the executive which led to a one party state, the lack of
an effective committee system and the high passage of bills which denied the public any direct
participation. In the second Republic this included an ethically unbalanced cabinet as the Party

7
'The Presidential And Parliamentary Governance Forms' (Lawteacher.net, 2019)
<https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/the-presidential-and-parliamentary-
governance-forms-administrative-law-essay.php> accessed 5 April 2019.

12
of the day lost all his potential Ministers in one of Ghana’s largest ethnic groupings (the Volta
Region). The third Republic saw a strict separation of powers, however, the President
appointed several able Ministers from Members of Parliament thus depriving Parliament of
some of its best legislators. As such the minority side with several Members having previous
experience in Parliament exploited procedures and defeated Government in a number of
national issues. In a parliamentary system the defeat of Government would have brought the
Government down but this was not so under the presidential system. The framers of the 1992
constitution were clearly influenced by such factors as political instability that had occurred in
the past in the form of coercion and armed rebellion. The hybrid system was thus designed to
ensure that both the executive and parliament work along the same lines. The following Articles
in the 1992 Constitution are indications that the current system of governance in Ghana is a
hybrid system:

Article 63(2) provides that the president shall be elected on the terms of universal adult suffrage
(Indication of a presidential system);

Article 76(1) of the constitution states that the cabinet shall consist of the president, the vice
and not less than 10 and not more than 19 ministers of state (Indication of a presidential
system);

Article 78(2) empowers the president to appoint all the ministers of state (Indication of a
presidential system);

Article 78(1) provides that the president with the prior approval of parliament shall appoint the
majority of Ministers of State from among Members of Parliament (parliamentary system);

Article 79(2) provides that Deputy Ministers shall be appointed from among Members of
Parliament (parliamentary system).

The hybrid system as embedded in the 1992 constitution of Ghana has constraints on both
Parliament and its committees. Some of the constraints of Parliament are the lack of their
oversight responsibility o the Executive and inability to appropriate money unless it is proposed
by the Executive. Article 78(1) which requires the President to appoint majority of Ministers

13
from among Members of Parliament undermines Parliaments oversight function.8 This
difficulties among others in the 1992 Constitution has necessitated its review by the current
administration.

8
Surbhi S, 'Difference Between Parliamentary And Presidential Form Of Government - Key Differences' (Key
Differences) <https://keydifferences.com/difference-between-parliamentary-and-presidential-form-of-
government.html> accessed 5 April 2019.

14
 CHAPTER 3

Difference between parliamentary and presidential form of government

Every country in the world has its own constitution, according to which policies are
framed, government bodies and institutions function and decisions are made. In finer
terms, it is the constitution, that covers all the aspects of the political system adopted by
the country. There are two forms of government, Parliamentary and Presidential. In
Parliamentary System, the political party winning the majority seats in the parliament
makes the government and elects a person from among themselves as the Prime
Minister who is the head of the Government.9

On the other hand, in the presidential form of government, the President is the chief executive,
who is directly elected by the people or by the members of the electoral college. The difference
between the Parliamentary and Presidential form of government is discussed in the article in
detail.

Parliamentary Government

1. The executive is not separated from the legislature. The members of council of ministers are
the members of legislature.

2. The executive is accountable to the legislature. The executive loses power when it loses the
confidence of the legislature.

3. In the Parliamentary government, one person is head of state while another persons is head
of government.

4. In the Parliamentary systems, the Prime Minister is most powerful.

5. In the Parliamentary system, the Prime Minister can appoint only the members of parliament
as minister.

6. In the Parliamentary system, the tenure of the executive is not fixed. The Council of
Ministers is dismissed if it loses the confidence of the legislature before its tenure is over.

9
Surbhi S, 'Difference Between Parliamentary And Presidential Form Of Government - Key Differences' (Key
Differences) <https://keydifferences.com/difference-between-parliamentary-and-presidential-form-of-
government.html> accessed 5 April 2019.

15
7. The Parliamentary government is more democratic, because the executive (council of
ministers) is accountable to the legislature (Parliament).

8. There is less of separation of powers in the Parliamentary government.

9. During war and other emergencies, the Parliamentary government is relatively less effective
and successful.

Presidential Government

1. The executive is completely separated I from the legislature. The members of executive are
not the members of the legislature.

2. The executive is not accountable to the II legislature. The legislature cannot remove the
executive from power] through no-confidence motion.

3. In the Presidential government, i same person is head of state as well as head of government.

4. In the Presidential system, the President is most powerful.

5. In the Presidential system, the President appoint persons from outside the legislature as
minister.

6. In the Presidential system, executive has a fixed tenure normally, the executive head
(President) stays in power for the whole term. It is not easy to remove him from power through
impeachment.10

7. The Presidential government is democratic, because the executive (President) is not

accountable to the legislature.

10
'Topic Of The Day – Presidential And Parliamentary Form Of Government' (Byjus.com)
<https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/presidential-and-parliamentary-form-of-government/> accessed 5 April 2019.

16
 CHAPTER-4
The separation of Powers-Why is it necessary?
History has time and again shown that unlimited power in the hands of one person or group in
most cases means that others are suppressed or their powers curtailed. The separation of powers
in a democracy is to prevent abuse of power and to safeguard freedom for all.

Sharing Power and Checking One Another

The system of separation of powers divides the tasks of the state into three branches: legislative,
executive and judicial. These tasks are assigned to different institutions in such a way that each
of them can check the others. As a result, no one institution can become so powerful in a
democracy as to destroy this system.

The Three Powers: Legislature, Executive, Judiciary

Checks and balances (rights of mutual control and influence) make sure that the three powers
interact in an equitable and balanced way. The separation of powers is an essential element of
the Rule of Law, and is enshrined in the Constitution.11

Clear Distinctions
The separation of powers is also reflected in the fact that certain functions must not be exercised
by one and the same person. Thus, the Federal President cannot at the same time be a Member
of the National Council, or a judge who is appointed Minister or elected to be a Member of the
National Council must be temporarily suspended from his/her judicial duties.

The Legislative Power

The first of the three powers has the task of passing laws and supervising their implementation.
It is exercised by Parliament – i.e. the National and Federal Councils – and the Provincial Diets.

The implementation of laws is the task of the executive and judicial branches

The Executive Power

The executive branch has the task of implementing laws. It comprises the Federal Government,
the Federal President and all federal authorities including the police and the armed forces.

11
'The Separation Of Powers – Why Is It Necessary?' (Parlament.gv.at, 2019)
<https://www.parlament.gv.at/ENGL/PERK/PARL/POL/ParluGewaltenteilung/index.shtml> accessed 5 April
2019.

17
The Judicial Power (Judiciary)
Judges administer justice, viz. they decide disputes independently and impartially. It is their
task to ensure that laws are complied with. Judges cannot be deposed and cannot be assigned
other positions against their will.

And the Parties?

As in other democratic countries the separation of powers is also in Austria affected by the
realities of the Party State. The Members of government are, as a rule, members of those parties
which have a majority in Parliament.

New Face of Separation of Powers: The Opposition exercising Control

As a result, one important democratic task is more and more often taken over by the opposition
parties: controlling the Government. The classical separation of powers is given a new
dimension – the confrontation of the governing majority and the opposition. While this aspect
is not enshrined in the written Constitution, it is a fact of political reality.

The Legislature checks the Executive

Parliament exercises control over the executive, it checks the work of the Federal Government
and the administrative institutions. The Government has to justify itself to Parliament in respect
of everything it does or causes the administration to do.

The Legislature is also Subject to Control

On the other hand, the Executive – in the person of the Federal President acting on a proposal
made by the Federal Government – has the right to dissolve the National Council. Laws passed
by the National Council can be checked by the Constitutional Court and declared null and void
if they are found to be unconstitutional.

The Legislature and the Judiciary

The only influence legislature has on the judiciary is that it passes the laws that the courts have
to comply with.12

12
'The Separation Of Powers – Why Is It Necessary?' (Parlament.gv.at, 2019)
<https://www.parlament.gv.at/ENGL/PERK/PARL/POL/ParluGewaltenteilung/index.shtml> accessed 5 April
2019.

18
The Executive
The two components of the Executive – the Administration and the Judiciary – are organised
upon strictly separate lines, with one exception: the Administration is checked by the courts of
public law (the Administrative Court, the Constitutional Court and the Asylum Court).

The Constitution contains strict rules on how tasks are assigned to the Administration or the
Judiciary. To give one example: Fines exceeding a certain amount can only be imposed by
courts.

19
 CHAPTER-5

CONCLUSION

The system of governance in countries differs depending on whether a country has a

presidential, parliamentary or hybrid political system. Though each country has its own
variance based on political structure, the characteristics of each of these systems and their
relationship to political conflict, executive and legislative power differ. In view of the
inconsistencies in the hybrid system of Ghana, I advocate for the adoption of the presidential
system of governance for Ghana based on the following:

Direct mandate — in a presidential system, the president is often elected directly by the people.
This makes the president’s power more legitimate than that of a leader appointed indirectly.

Separation of Powers — a presidential system establishes the presidency and the legislature as
two parallel structures. This arrangement allows each structure to serve as check and balances
thus, preventing abuses.

Speed and Decisiveness — the president has stronger powers and can usually enact changes
quickly.

20
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

WEB SOURCES
1. 'The Separation Of Powers – Why Is It Necessary?' (Parlament.gv.at, 2019)
<https://www.parlament.gv.at/ENGL/PERK/PARL/POL/ParluGewaltenteilung/index.
shtml> accessed 5 April 2019
2. 'The Presidential And Parliamentary Governance Forms' (Lawteacher.net, 2019)
<https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/the-presidential-and-
parliamentary-governance-forms-administrative-law-essay.php> accessed 5 April
2019.
3. Lijphart A, Parliamentary Versus Presidential Government (Oxford Readings In
Politics And Government) Paperback – Import, 20 Feb 1992 (1992)
4. S S, 'Difference Between Parliamentary And Presidential Form Of Government - Key
Differences' (Key Differences) <https://keydifferences.com/difference-between-
parliamentary-and-presidential-form-of-government.html> accessed 5 April 2019

BOOKS

1. Verma G, Parliamentary Versus Presidential System Of Government Hardcover –

Import, Dec 2010 By G. L. Verma (Author) (2010)
2. Lijphart A, Parliamentary Versus Presidential Government (Oxford Readings In
Politics And Government) Paperback – Import, 20 Feb 1992 (1992)

21