The executive is accountable to the legislature. This is the worst aspect of the Presidential system. For you, is it a Parliamentary or a Presidential system?
The Presidential system is largely free from this drawbacks, as well as from rivalry and friction between the party bosses and the ministerial wing. Despite this broad similarity, semi-presidential institutions are organized in significantly different ways in each country.
They devised a revolutionary new system of strong but non-oppressive governments. While public opinion has better chance to influence the government's policies and decisions in the Parliamentary system, the Presidential system is more successful in providing political stability. More importantly, the parliament may remove the prime minister at any time by a simple majority vote.
The president can be removed from office through the process of impeachment. For me, any system will do as long as it will benefit the people. In the Presidential system, executive has a fixed tenure normally, the executive head President stays in power for the whole term.
Defection leads to multiplication of political parties, political instability comes in the way of constructive work. In a presidential system the executive the president and the cabinet are totally separate from the legislature and are not dependant on the legislature for confidence. In fact, power in the presidential system is divided among many, so no individual or institution can ever become supreme.
It certainly means greater stability and sanity in the politics of a country. For example, Westminster currently has more male MPs than there have ever been female MPs, so it is a "Representative Democracy" but not a "representative" democracy.
Elections are therefore held more frequently than the parliamentary system; every two years for the legislature, and every four for the presidency.
With that in mind, a Parliamentary democracy is just an individual model of how a representative democracy might work, in that representatives are elected who in turn elect an executive the Government.
These two forms of government have their own distinctive characteristics and their own respective merits and demerits. Download 1MB Preview Abstract It has become a commonplace observation in recent years that Russian democracy is in remission.
The central feature of these systems is a fusion of legislative and executive power, that government is parliamentary in that it is drawn from the assembly or parliament.
Presidential and parliamentary systems of government can vary in specific details from one country to another, but certain general aspects typically are the same in countries that have the same type of system.
But still the question is what is the best for our country and for the people? Parliaments supremacy over the king was not established until the revolution ofand its capacity to call government to account not recognised until the gradual emergence of a democratic franchise during the 19th Century.
By comparing these institutions across two semi-presidential states, important differences can be unearthed and their implications for democratic performance analyzed. It is also worth pointing out that a Parliamentary democracy need not be purely representative, as events like referenda or plebiscites are examples of more direct democracy and can happily exist alongside an elected Parliament.
Government is effective because it rests on the confidence of the assembly and so can, in most cases, ensure that its legislative programme is passed. The Presidential government is democratic, because the executive President is not accountable to the legislature.
The President, Congress with two chambers: This can cause discord at the highest levels of the government and make it difficult for the executive and the legislators to achieve their respective goals. Unfortunately, however, parliamentary systems often fail to live up to these high expectations.Every parliamentary system is a representative one (since the Parliament is a form of representation, by definition).
However, not every representative system mast be a parliamentary one. For example, presidential system - like USA - have executive branch is % independent of legislature. Every system is different. The salient distinction between the two classes of systems is that, in a presidential system, executive power is constitutionally vested in a single individual (i.e., the president), whereas, in a parliamentary system, executive power is vested in the legislature (i.e., parliament, which chooses a prime minister or chancellor to head the executive).
England and France both developed very different governmental systems during the sixteenth century.
Great Britain created a governmental system on which there is little infringement upon the rights of the people, and there is a parliamentary government to keep the royal power in check/5(1).
Feb 06, · In presidential system, the presidents is directly chosen by the people, or by a set of electors directly chosen by the people but in a parliamentary system. The British Parliamentary System and the American Presidential System--Side-by-Side Comparison and Contrast: The parliamentary system in the United Kingdom and the presidential system in the U.S.A.
differ from each other in the following ways. There are similarities and differences between a parliamentary democracy and a presidential democracy. One similarity is that in both forms of government, the people elect their representatives.Download