Free Presidential And Parliamentary System Essay Example

The democratic consolidations of governance and constitutional frameworks demonstrates the need for a system of political governance that establishes the mechanism of economic and political restructure, economic markets and institutions. The focus on political institutions shapes the trajectory for understanding the presidential and parliamentary systems within the spectrum of democracy. Existing literature formulate the interpretation of institutional dispensation of comparative politics that guides the form, shape and direction of economic and social democracy (Stepan and Skach, 1993). This paper is a comparative assessment of the presidential and parliamentary systems making a concise argument for the suitable system for democratic success.
The basic principle of parliamentary and presidential system is the political structure of governance evidenced in Germany and the US respectively. This underscores that most of the democracies in European states takes the parliamentary form based on their representative election by the citizens of the state. According to Shively (1993), the critical foundation of the presidential system is captured on the functional interplay between the legislature and the executive; whose election is conducted separately. The legislature composite of the Congress is elected on the same day as the president; a fact that is different in the parliamentary system where the electorate vote for members of the parliament.
The foundational tenets of the parliamentary system of governance are evidenced by the members of parliament elected by the citizen. This means that the legislature in this system becomes the only elected body in the states and mandated with the passage of bills and laws. Shively (1993) address the foundational principle of the executive by pointing out its nature and function. The common practices across the world show that in most parliamentary systems, the power of the executive is anchored on the management of bureaucracy as well as conducting interstate relation. This paradigm captures the philosophy that the parliamentary system is charged with the role of keeping the checks and balances in the executive power.
It is imperative to note that the main merit of the parliamentary system is to allow the government in responding to the change of political circumstance based on the unified nature of power. This understanding illustrates the success of parliamentary system fragmented in the ability to enjoy the majority of the political party and make inroads on the account of political patronage. The nature of decision-making reduces the bureaucracies. This allows the president little barriers in the execution of the political functions. Nonetheless, Stepan and Skach (1993) underscores that the responsibility of the policy making is clear. For example, election allows voters to take part in shaping the political powers. However, it emerges that once the results of the elections are out, political parties have little control in following up on the election promises made.
The challenge that make the parliamentary system ineffective for democracy is pegged on the lack of protection for the minority which may genuinely feel wronged. According to Shively (1993), it is evident that the presidential system accords respect and protection to the minority with the hope that either the legislature or the president can independently address genuine grievances and constitutional concerns. Governments in parliamentary systems can be reduced to being unstable based on the coalition agreements. In view of this, the strict marriage of convenience that characterize coalitions may fail to agree in the event of political betrayal. From this perspective, the numerical strength that establishes the parliamentary system fosters a relationship of mistrust making it possible to paralyze the governmental functions. This is consistent with the neo-capitalist intent of representation.
The presidential system captures the ideals of democracy by allowing both the legislature and the executive to independently exist from each other. This notion paints a suitable picture of governance established from the perspective of autonomy and responsible for the corporation for government operations (Stepan and Skach, 1993). The case of the US clearly illustrates the efficiency of presidential system whereby the political parties get the dimension where the Congress and the executive working in intimate cooperation for the political, social and economic good for the country. It is plausible to note that in the presidential system the natural competition between the legislature and the executive can be neutralized through compromise and bipartisan approaches. This allows the president a good deal of cooperation and coordination (Mainwaring, 1993).
In addition, it is evident that the presidential system manifest a necessary characteristically that sufficiently allow conditions of success in the aspiring democracies leading to efficiencies in attempts to yield social, economic dynamics and strengths democratic space (Shiverly, 1993). The basis of this understanding is the characteristic demonstration why even parliamentary systems desist from pure parliamentarians. The wisdom of the dismissal of pure parliamentary models of governance is aligned to the general consensus that democracies require increased degree of freedom to facilitate the necessary social and economic restructure which lack in parliamentary systems.
In the presidential system, the present assumes the roles of the head of government. Mainwaring (1993) underscores that the essential factor that establishes the election of the presidential system is the lack of focus on popular votes as the determinant of the winner in the election is the Electoral College. The legislative members’ elections, as well as postelections, are negotiated to determine the governing parties are common with the parliamentary system. Practical implication shows that parties in the political constructs in the presidential system are loosely unified (Stepan and Skach, 1993). Unlike the presidential system, the parliamentary system allows the head of government, which in most cases in the primer to share executive power with the government and initiate a cooperative framework with the legislature. However, in the presidential system, the president has little concern with the political advancement of the members of the legislature thus making the executive unable to control the happenings of the legislature.
The unified political parties allow for the coordination of the President. This shapes the belief that the president has the leeway to coordinate with coalition of parties to support the manifesto of the ruling party and advance the social economic and political trajectory of the government of the day (Mainwaring, 1993). The underlying principles that makes the presidential system ideal and favorable for democratic success the characteristic coordination between the legislature and the executive arms of government. This reinforces the argument that the coequal nature of the two arms of government in the presidential system organizes the functional advantage of the legislature and the executive to advance the success of the social, economic and political agenda of the ruling parties. As a result, the presidential system offers a coherent policy leadership that is evidently absent in the parliamentary system leading to the governance stability in the democratic space.

Reference List

Mainwaring, S (1993). Presidentialism, Multipartism, and Democracy. The Difficult Combination. Comparative Political Studies vol. 26 no. 2 198-228
Shively, P (2013). Power & Choice: An Introduction to Political Science. New York: McGraw-Hill
Stepan, A and Skach, C (1993). Constitutional Frameworks and Democratic Consolidation: Parliamentarianism versus Presidentialism. World Politics Vol. 46, No. 1 (Oct., 1993), pp. 1-22