POLITICAL SCIENCE

AASN-2

SEMESTER -2

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 [1]. 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 [2].

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 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.

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.

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 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. 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. 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). [4]
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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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). [6]

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.

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

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.

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.

Content: Parliamentary System Vs Presidential System

1. Comparison Chart
2. Definition
3. Key Differences
4. Conclusion

Comparison Chart

BASIS FOR PARLIAMENTARY FORM OF PRESIDENTIAL FORM OF

COMPARISON GOVERNMENT GORVERNMENT

Meaning In Parliamentay system the legislative In Presidential system, the

and executive body of government are legislative, executive and
closely related, while the judiciary is judiciary body of the
independent of the other two bodies of government are independent of
government. each other.

Executive Dual executive Single executive

Accountability The executive is accountable to the The executive is not

legislature. accountable to the legislature.

Powers Concentrated Divided

Ministers Only the members of Parliament can be Persons outside the legislature
appointed as minster. are appointed as ministers.

Dissolution of Prime Minister can dissolve the lower President cannot dissolve lower
lower house house before the expiry of its term. house.

Tenure of Not fixed Fixed

Executive
Definition of Parliamentary form of Government

Parliamentary form of government represents a system of democratic

governance of a country, wherein the executive branch is derived from the
legislative body, i.e. the Parliament. Here, the executive is divided into two
parts, the Head of the State, i.e. President, who is only the nominal
executive and the Head of the Government, i.e. Prime Minister, who is the
real executive.

As per this system, the political party getting the maximum number of seats
during federal elections, in the Parliament, forms the government. The
party elects a member, as a leader, who is appointed as the Prime Minister
by the President. After the appointment of the Prime Minister, the Cabinet
is formed by him, whose members should be out of the Parliament. The
executive body, i.e. the Cabinet is accountable to the legislative body, i.e.
Parliament

This system is prevalent in the countries like United Kingdom, India, Japan
and Canada.

Definition of Presidential form of Government

When a country follows the Presidential form of Government, it denotes

that there is only one person as the head of the state and government, i.e.
the President. The election of the President is made directly by the citizens
of the country or sometimes by the members of the electoral college for a
fixed period.

The President elects some ministers as the Secretary and forms a small
Cabinet, who assist in governing the country. Neither the President nor the
Secretaries are accountable to the Congress (Parliament) for their acts.
Indeed, they do not attend the sessions as well.

This form of government can be found in the countries like United States of
America, Russia, Brazil and Srilanka.

Key Differences Between Parliamentary and Presidential form of Government

The points presented below are important so far as the differences between
parliamentary and presidential form of government is concerned:
The Parliamentary system of government is one in which there exists a harmonious
relationship between the legislative and executive body, while the judiciary body
works independently. As against this, in Presidential form of government, the three
organs of the government work independently of each other.
In Parliamentary form of government, the executive is divided into two parts, i.e. the
Head of the State (President) and the Head of the Government (Prime Minister). On
the contrary, the President is the chief executive of the Presidential form of
Government.
In the Parliamentary form of government, the executive body, i.e. the Council of
Ministers is accountable to the Parliament for its acts. Conversely, in the Presidential
form of Government, there is no such accountability, i.e. the executive body is not
accountable to the Parliament for its acts.
Fusion of powers exists in the Parliamentary system, whereas the powers are
separated in Presidential system.
In Parliamentary form, only those persons are appointed as ministers in the
executive body who are the members of Parliament. Unlike, in Presidential form,
persons other than those working in the legislature can be appointed as secretaries.
In Parliamentary government, the Prime Minister has the power to dissolve the lower
house before the completion of its term. As opposed, the President cannot dissolve
the lower house, in Presidential government.
The tenure of the executive is not fixed in Parliamentary government, as in, if a no-
confidence motion is passed in the Parliament, the Council of Ministers is dismissed.
Contrary to this, the executive has a fixed term in the Presidential government.

INDIA VS US GOVT SYSTEM

1.

The fundamental difference between Indian Government and U.S. Government is that
ours is a Parliamental form of Government and U.S. Government is Presidential form of
Government.

2.

Parliamental form of Government means the Prime Minister shall be the appointed head
of the Government, whereas, in case of Presidential form of Government, the President
shall be the head of Government.

3.

In India, almost all major powers are vested in the Prime Minister of India and in U.S.
the President is the most powerful authority.

4.

Both Indian Parliament and US Congress are bicameral. Parliament consists of the
President, Upper House and Lower House.

5.
The Executive in India is inseparably linked to the Legislature. The Executive in India
means the Council of Ministers. In U.S., the President himself is the Executive and hence
there is a clear distinction between the Executive and the Legislature.

6.

In India, there is one and only Constitution for the whole nation, except for the state of
Jammu and Kashmir. As per article 370 of the Constitution of India, the state can have
its own separate Constitution. But in the U.S.A. the national Constitution allows its
states to have their own Constitutions. That is why the main Constitution of the nation is
very smaller one. But in India, one of the reasons, why the volume of our Constitution is
so large, is that it incorporates matters of all states.

7.

Indian Constitution is both rigid and flexible in nature. Till 2013, there have been total
120 amendments of the Constitution since 1949. U.S. Constitution is comparatively rigid
in nature and there have been only 27 amendments to it since 1776.

8.

The Fundamental Rights specified in Part III of the Indian Constitution is the civil and
political charter of India. Any law or Act passed by the legislature must not mar any of
the prescribed fundamental rights or violate the spirit of the Constitution and in such
case the Supreme Court for central level and High Courts for state level shall declare
such legislation void.

9.

The Directive Principles specified in the Part IV of the Indian Constitution is the social
and economic charter of India and it is imperative the states shall promote and abide by
them towards building an welfare state.

10.

In India number of representatives in the Council of States are decided in a proportional

basis, i.e., ratio between number of representatives from each state and its population
should be same for all. Whereas in the U.S.A., the number of representatives in Senate is
equal and always 2 for each state.

11.

In the Constitution of India, a balance of power has been depicted among the Executive,
the Legislature and the Judiciary. Whereas, it is known that the Judiciary of the U.S.A. is
the most powerful.

12.

In India, the President is regarded as the “Ornamental Head of the State” and certain
special powers are vested in him/her. He is elected by a special process and not directly
by the people. Whereas, the U.S. President is directly elected by the people and it is said
that the U.S. President is the most powerful all over the world.

13.
Finally, the structure of Indian Government is mainly federal but with strong unitary
bias. In case of U.S.A., the Government is mainly federal in nature because the States are
empowered with their own Constitutions.

14.

Government of both India and United States is divided into three parts (The Executive,
The Legislative and the Judiciary. The Legislative makes the law, the Judiciary
interprets the law and the Executive enforces the law) however, while US has a
Presidential form of government, India has a Parliamentary from of Government.

15.

In a Parliamentary from of government, the executive branch of the government derives

it’s authority from the legislative branch while in a Presidential from of government, the
executive branch is independent of the legislative branch. Moreover, both India and
United States have a federal government, however States in US have much power than
those of India, States in US can legally secede from the Union while those of India can’t.

16.

Both India and United States have a bicameral legislature with a upper House (Senate in
US and Rajya Sabha in India) and a Lower House (House of Representatives in
USand Lok Sabha in India). Members of the Senate and Rajya Sabha serve a 6 year term,
members of the House of Representatives serve a 2 year term and the members of Lok
Sabha serve a 5 year term.

17.

The Executive branch of United States is led by The President and while the President of
India also serves as the head of the Executive Branch in India, he can only can act on
Prime Minister’s advise, who is in turn elected indirectly through the Lok Sabha. In
contrast, President of U.S. is completely independent from the US Congress.

18.

Coming to the Judiciary, while both the US and Indian Supreme court work in different
ways, they perform the same function i.e. interpret the law.

19.

All major differences between the Indian and the U.S government can be brought down
to the difference between the offices of the President of United States and the President
of India.

20.

President of US has the mandate of the people, the freedom to pass laws, the supreme
command of the Armed Forces and the freedom to shape the foreign policy of the
country while the President of India is merely a figure head.

21.
Although all laws passed in India and all treaties made with foreign States are in the
name of the President of India, the President himself has no power to negotiate them;
even though he has the supreme command of the Armed Forces, he can only issue orders
on the advise of the Prime Minister.

The two systems of government of India and USA are different institutionally as well as
functionally. In idian the system of government is Parliamentary while it is Presidential
system in the USA.
 Nomenclature :
 In India its called the Parliament. In U.S its called the Congress. While its Loksabha for
India it is House of Representatives for U.S. And if its Rajyasabha (upperHouse for
India) it is "Senate" for the USA.
 
 Functioning : 
 Legislation :
 1)In India the bill is introduced in either of the houses and is deemed to be passed when
its passed by both the houses and receives the assent of the president.While in USA the
president assumes greater but not ultimate power with regard to the bill becoming a law
the bill becomes a law if both houses of The Congress of the u s pass it with a simple
majority and the president gives his assent however if the president does not take any
action for continuous number of 10 days excluding Sundays and the bill is deemed to be
passed . In the second case if the president rejects the bill from becoming a law then its
again placed before both houses of the Congress and now if it is passed with two thirds
majority the bill automatically becomes a law without even further need of the
Presidential assent.
 
 Executive:
 1) Prime minister is the nominal head of the Executive in India(Article 74) and his
council of Ministers shall have to be from either of the two houses of Indian parliament .
If not they have to be atleast get elected to either of the houses within 6 months. So
practically the PM has restricted freedom in selecting his council. Where as in USA the
president is free to nominate anyone as per his wish in to his council of ministers. 
 
 2) The Indian PM and his council works for the people on behalf of the parliament and
are responsible to the parliament for an y of their action where as in the USA the
congress has minimal authority with respect to the president and his functioning.
Exception prevails with respect to the Budgetary laws etc. 
 
 3) The PM of India and his Government must enjoy the support of majority in the
Loksabha where as in USA the president may or maynot enjoy the majority . Reason
being that president of USA is directly elected by the people.
 
 4)PM at time be removed from office by No-Confidence motion where as President of
USA cant be till 4 years.

Conclusion

The members of the cabinet possess double membership, i.e. of legislative

and executive organ of government. Contrary to this, in the presidential
form of government, the members of the cabinet possesses the membership
of executive organ only.
When it comes to dominance, in the Parliamentary System, the President is
only the titorial head, while the real powers lie in the hands of the Prime
Minister. On the contrary, in the Presidential System, the President has got
the supreme power.

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.

Stability — A president, by virtue of a fixed term, may provide more stability than a
prime minister who can be dismissed at any time.