Presidentialism Vs Parliamentarism

Front 1

Executive

Back 1

making and implementing policies and running the state

Front 2

Legislature

Back 2

passing laws and checking executive outcomes

Front 3

Judiciary

Back 3

Interpretation and application of laws

Front 4

Presidential Systems, Basic Characteristics

Back 4

Separation of legislative and executive powers- two branches are independent of each other

Checks and balances- policy making needs approval by both branches

Executive branch is very strong

Found in the US, Latin America, Africa, former Soviet Union

Front 5

Presidents

Back 5

Heads of state and government

Directly elected by the people wither by plurality or majority

Serve fixed terms in office- early elections cannot be called, often term limits exist on re-election

Presidents appoint and direct government and cabinet- cabinest include out-of-parliament personalities, executive responsibility lies with the president

Tenure not dependent on parliamentary support- legislature cannot force elections, no 'vote-of-confidence' clause, impeachment as an extreme measure

Presidents enjoy increased legitimacy stemming from direct election

They have policy making powers- veto powers and decrees

Independents often run- parties are not a unique power-winning vehicle

Front 6

Legislature in Presidential Systems

Back 6

Independent from the President

Passes laws- but may be overriden by President's veto

Parties may or may not align with the President

Elections may be concurrent or not

Front 7

Parliamentary Systems, Basic Characteristics

Back 7

Combination of executive and legislative powers

Two branches dependent on one another

Legislative branch is strong

Found mostly in Europe

Front 8

Prime Minister

Back 8

Head of Government- Head of State has a ceremonial role

Often comes from election winning party- indirectly chosen by Parliament, lack of parliamentary majority can result in coalition or minority governments

Form Cabinet from members of Parliament

Front 9

Legislature of Parliamentary Systems

Back 9

Parliament intiates legislation

Parliament can reject the Prime Minister- vote of confidence- either new government formed or new elections called

Prime Minister may dissolve Parliament

No fixed tenure

Front 10

Linz: The Perils of Presidentialism

Back 10

Presidential systems are prone to breakdown

Problems arise from dual legitimacy, fixed terms and the fact the presidential elections are a zero-sum game

Front 11

Problems of Presidentialism: Rigidity

Back 11

Presidential Systems are rigid- it's difficult to oust presidents due to fixed terms

Unable to adjust to changes in public opinion or critical events- Presidents with decreasing legitimacy are protected constitutionally

Front 12

Problems of Presidentialism: Dual Legitimacy

Back 12

Presidents claim to represent the people- but parliaments also do so, therefore who dominates?

If Parliament is controlled by a diffeent party it becomes difficult to pass legislation- divided government may lead to severe conflicts

There is no principle on how to resolve deadlock

Front 13

Problems of Presidentialism: Coalitions and Party Discipline

Back 13

Minority governments can be a problem in presidential systems as there are few incentives to co-operate and to form coalitions, there is an emphasis on 'mutual independence'

Weak partes and limited party discipline- results in no incentives to follow leader, MP survival does not depend on passing laws

Policy making may come to a standstill- worst case scenario, the army may intervene and democracy collapse.

Front 14

Problems of Presidentialism: Multipartyism

Back 14

Fragmented pary systems exacerbate problems of presidentialism- legislative fragmentation can cause deadlock, in parliamentary systems, fragmentation can lead to government instability

Evidence suggests that presidential systems with multiple parties are brittle- democaratic collapse is likely

Front 15

The Pros of Parliamentarism: Flexibility and Checks and Balances

Back 15

Parliamentarism is flexible- PM and Cabinet can be changed through a 'vote-of-confidence', early elections can be called; no fixed terms, ability to adjust to changes in the popular will

PM is not as powerful as a President- PMs are also MPs: 'first amongst equals', their survival depends on Parliament

Front 16

The Pros of Parliamentarism: Power Sharing and Discipline

Back 16

Power sharing lies in the heart of Parliamentariam- coalition formation and minority governments are common, 'mutual dependence' between legislature and government

Parties are more disciplined- MPs support their party in the legislature as it is key for their survival and possible advancement in party politics

Front 17

The Pros of Parliamentarism: Conflict Resolution

Back 17

Major difference between Presidential and Parliamentary systems

In prescence of deadlock, government only survives if there is no alternative majority that can replace it, or new elections are called

No such options exist in Presidentialism

Front 18

Empirical evidence shows that Presidential systems collapse more often than parliamentary ones

Back 18

But why is this? Is the structure of the system to blame or is it something else?

Front 19

Cheibub's Military Nexus

Back 19

There's a nexus between military dictatorships and presidentialism that explains the difference in democratic survival.
Argentina, Uruguay and Ghana have all experienced more than one instance in the 20th century where the military directly took over the government leading to a collapse of democracy.

Presidential democracies are more likely to follow military dictatorships, 66% v 28%

Nexus not the inherent features of presidentialism that explains the 'brittleness'.