Essay On Comparing And Contrasting Presidential And Parliamentary System

The republican form of government is considered to be defined against the background of the opportunity to elect the leaders. The folk is assignee to make this resolve. By-turn, the republic is a comprehensive notion that comprises the presidential, parliamentary and semi-presidential ones. The semi-presidential republics are regarded as combined because there are the characters from two types of government forms. That way we can get an understanding when the major two types are clear for the both politician and citizen in particular. In general, it is important to realize the difference among these forms because only in this way people may influence upon the state of affairs in political establishment. People have to focus on the ability of constituent power to control government apparatus. Thus, the main key is to realize the fullness of democracy manifestation in these government forms. But at first is necessary to consider the main characteristic of democracy.
According to Mainwaring (1993), “Democracies must have open, competitive elections that determine who governs” (p.200). Therefore the mentioned form of government reflect this in different ways. Mainwaring (1993) stated as well “there must be guaranties of traditional civil liberties such as freedom of speech, freedom of organization, freedom of press, due process of law, and so on” (p.200). Therefore, the aim is to consider different types of government against the background of the democracy features. The final step heads for the more democratic type comparing presidential and parliamentary systems.
As it was mentioned earlier, parliamentary system relates to the republican form of government when the government authority is fulfilled by the parliament being considered as the major apparatus of legislative and executive performances. In this case, the parliament elects the president, for instance this political process is established in Greece, Lebanon, Hungary, Turkey and Czech Republic. Sometimes the elections may involve the delegates of federation. The appropriate examples are India and Italy. The president authorities turn out to be really limited even in the case when this person is elected by folk. The executive force is fulfilled by the government.
The main key of parliament republic is that parliament possess the leadership and the government has the political responsibilities to this apparatus not to the president. Owning to the vote of no-confidence, parliament is empowered to dismiss the government. The executive force represented by governments in this case can turn to president convincing to dismiss parliament and сall the elections. Thus, it is represented the particular dependence upon the parliament. The head of government is the leader of party who has the majority in parliament.
If the president publishes the acts, they have legal effect only under the condition of parliament approval. And the cause of these acts establishment is closely related to the parliament decision. President does not have any rights to announce the veto of suspense, thus these acts are completely empowered by the parliament.
The parliament republic foresees the next advantages. Comparing with presidential one, it is regarded to prevent the confrontation of executive and legislative forces. And the last one is given the higher priority. Having won the parliament elections, the particular party is empowered to choose the president from own authority. Thus, the country has the one-party or uniform government supported by the parliament.
In presidential republic president plays the vital role in state structure. He aims at combining the authority of government and state leader. President has the executive power, while parliament focuses on the legislative activity. In political science this is named the dualistic republic.
The significant key is that the president is elected not by the parliament. In France and Brazil the folk takes the direct part in this decision.
Thus, president forms this so-called extra parliamentary method of government establishment. He holds the position of government leader, the position of prime minister is nor relevant as in the USA. The next great difference relates to the subordination of president. The government takes the full responsibility to the president because he can dismiss this apparatus of power. The presidential system in comparison with parliament one differs in president’s significant authority. The authority of president stipulates that he is nor able to dismiss the parliament and it in turn can not announce the non-confidence to him.
According to Alfred Stepan (1994), “A pure presidential regime in a democracy is a system of mutual independence. The legislative power has a fixed electoral mandate that it is own source of legitimacy. The chief executive power has a fixed electoral mandate that it is own source of legitimacy” (p.4). Comparing with the parliamentary system, it is noted that majority plays the significant role in legitimacy of president because of the strong authority of parliament system mentioned at the beginning.
Finally, these systems should be compared in detail and one of them may be recognized as more democratic. Obviously, the parliament appoints the executive leader in country in parliamentary system, but in presidential one the voters are empowered to do it. In general, politicians regards this phenomenon to be more democratic. The strong confirmation was stated by Phillips Shively (1995), “Presidents have a personal mandate from the voters; therefore, they are able to take more personal direct charge than the cabinet can in parliament system” (p.344). But in practice the situation turns out not so predictable.
Being the leader of government in parliamentary system, president does not fulfill the significant duties unlike the parliament that has the strong authority in the executive activity. As for presidential system, the government leader possesses the great amount or political power. Thus, the elections of president have the disputable character of voting process importance in these political systems.
As it was mentioned the government feels the responsibility to president in the presidential system, but voters will not support this statement. Because the new decision of president may be defeated by parliament. And this aspect makes us wonder who is responsible for the law fulfillment.
The next important key is the different power of president in two systems. In parliamentary regime, he acts as representative person and has no authority to fulfill legislative activity. President doesn’t have any right to veto the adopted laws of parliament. The president’s actions are legal only according to the countersignature. The parliamentary systems demonstrates the reverse performance of president’s rights.
Regarding this, Phillips Shively (1995) stated, “Presidents have proposed energy policy to Congress, but have never been able to get agreement or anything recognizable as policy” (p. 346). This testifies to prove the weakness of comprehensive policy in presidential system.
Taking into account that people know the candidate into position of president more precisely in parliamentary system, we may state that it is more democratic. Surely, presidential system turns out democratic as well under the established laws. But is practice it happens when the executive person seizes the power and advocates personal policy without regarding of counterpoise. Exactly this actions are considered not to be democratic features. The country may follow the authoritarianism. In this way, folk is not able to change the situation people are not empowered to make the impeachment. In parliamentary system president cannot to seize the power because people are able to dismiss the parliament and to elect new leaders. Thus, from points of politicians, the parliamentary system is more democratic even in the case of mentioned situation.

References

Mainwaring, S. (n.d.). Presidentialism, Multipartism, And Democracy: The Difficult Combination. Comparative Political Studies, 198-228.
Shively, W. (1995). Power and choice: An introduction to political science. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Stepan, A., & Skach, C. (1994). Constitutional frameworks and democratic consolidation. Place of publication not identified: [publisher not identified].