Amazon.com Widgets

Is a parliamentary form of government better than a presidential form of government?

Asked by: Juris
  • Parliamentary Systems are SUPERIOR to Presidential Systems

    Parliamentary Systems are much more STABLE, much more EFFICIENT, much more ACCOUNTABLE, LESS PRONE TO CORRUPTION, and the quality of leaders is better.

    There are regular parliamentary sessions where the Prime Minister and Cabinet are called to account for their actions, decisions, etc which keeps them on their toes and ensures that it is harder for them to do things in secret or under the table.

    The quality of leaders is better because in Parliamentary Systems, parties have to choose the best among them to become the party leader. In Presidential Systems, the tendency is for elections to be popularity contests where the most popular or those with the best name-recall win the elections, but not necessary the best ones.

  • Parliamentary form of government is better than presidential form.

    Elections - costs a lot of money in presidential form
    Branch of government - Legislative and executive is better when fused; debates happen, waking up people's opinions/stand; if not fused, there is no progress
    Leader - in parliamentary, the leader can be changed easily if he is not deserved; in presidential, there is a fixed term, meaning if you got a corrupt leader, its either you would wait to finish his/her term or set-up coup de etats (which are dangerous anyway)

    Overview - parliamentary is more systematic; presidential tends to be unstable and chaotic when ALL people engage in issues..

  • Statistics and Evidence Favor the Parliamentary System

    The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the parliamentary system. Successful countries all tend to be parliamentary, with the notable exception of the U.S., which is presidential. Parliamentary countries top various indices like the Corruption Perceptions Index or the Human Development Index. They are less corrupt and less prone to political disruptions (like political gridlock, assassinations, coup d'etats, and revolutions).

    The reason for this is that, unlike the presidential system, parliamentary systems have a built-in mechanism that allows for the easy removal of a lousy leader, who can be removed easily in three legal ways: 1) vote of confidence; 2) removal by the party; 3) removal by the Head-of-State. Compare this with the presidential system wherein the only legal recourse is through the very difficult process of impeachment, which rarely succeeds, leaving citizens with the option of either waiting until the end of the term or forcefully removing the leader through a risky revolution or coup d'etat.

    Another positive feature is the fusion between the legislative and executive branches, which eliminates political gridlock and allows the people's representatives in the legislature to directly engage the executive in debates. This is not possible in a presidential system since the executive and legislative branches are constitutionally separated and thereby not obligated to engage the legislature in debate. The end result is that politicians in parliamentary systems tend to be more competent than those in presidential systems.

  • Parliamenary System Better than Presidential

    Presidential Systems have tended to focus electoral campaigns on personalities rather than platforms and programs because the focus is on the person (candidate) and not the party. The Sarah Palin episode happened because of the Presidential System. It's all about Celebrities and not who's best to lead the country. But Parliamentary Systems on the other hand feature a much more meritocratic structure. Compare the quality of a British, Canadian, Australian, etc Prime Minister versus a US President. Chances are, those Prime Ministers are able to out-debate the US President. Most US Presidents are chosen simply because of their ability to win elections, never mind if they're fit for the role. Prime Ministers in parliamentary systems are usually the best in their party so quality of leadership is high.

  • Parliamentary is Better!

    A Parliamentarian style of government is better than a Presidential style of government because of the efficiency of the government with restraints to prevent against a dictatorship or a totalitarian rule. When a Prime Minister is elected to office he is elected by the party with the majority. The majority party is elected by the people of the country as representatives to what they want thus giving the people a direct voice in their government. The parliamentary is then led by the party leader of the majority. Sure he can do anything he wants but he does have the vote of confidence to think of. The vote of confidence is taken anytime anything is put into effect or a government decision is made. To remove a Prime Minister from office by a vote of confidence the Prime Minister must receive less than 50% of support. Another thing a Prime Minister must worry about is reelection. If the people that elected him do not support what he is doing the opposing party will win and he will no longer be in power. In this aspect the vote of confidence and reelection are both things for the Prime Minister to think about to keep him in check. Another good aspect of the Parliamentarian system is that because there is no real check on the Prime Minister's power or jurisdiction he can accomplish things in a much faster and more efficient manner which means no government shutdowns because of inability to compromise. It also means that in times of crisis help is going to be provided more rapidly and efficiently and communication between government programs is going to go quickly. Thus the government is a better working organ under the parliamentarian system. My only recommendation to help a parliamentarian system is to provide a court with appointed officials to keep the Prime Minister in check and give them a vote of confidence without party bias.

  • Parliamentary system is better

    This is the best system of government when it comes to stable government. Canada, Germany, Italy, India, Jamaica and many more countries are great examples of this good system of government. I wish one day, this system can be present in Haiti. Thank you to the UK for developping this system of government.

  • The parliamentary form of government is better for heterogeneous countries.

    In a Parliamentary System, minority groups can form third, fourth, and fifth parties and have much more influence in government than in a Presidential System where third parties are marginalized (many complexities here). A vote for a third party in a Presidential System is arguably a wasted vote, but not so in a Parliamentary System where third parties often join and influence governing coalitions. This has large implications for minority groups and positions. This also gives a clear voice to small downtrodden minorities of countries like India where a variety of cultures. Languages and religions exist.

  • Parliamentary form of government is better for heterogeneous countries.

    In a Parliamentary System, minority groups can form third, fourth, and fifth parties and have much more influence in government than in a Presidential System where third parties are marginalized (many complexities here). A vote for a third party in a Presidential System is arguably a wasted vote, but not so in a Parliamentary System where third parties often join and influence governing coalitions. This has large implications for minority groups and positions. This also gives a clear voice to small downtrodden minorities of countries like India where a variety of cultures, languages and religions exist.

  • I support your points

    Truely said if bad leader is chosen then it can cause great harm and obviously people cannot wait for their president to get changed and ya parliamentary form is somewhere much more efficient then presidential one and all the points are mostly supporting parliamentary form so i would like to support parliamentry form how so ever we are, we are good

  • Parliamentary systems overarchingly are more representative of their constituents

    Parliamentary systems allow for a wider variety of political parties & political opinions to be expressed. This allows for greater political choice for the people, and except in instances where one party has an overwhelming majority over the others, it provides a system of checks and balances without even having to leave one branch of government. In all of US history, there has never been a presidential race where more than two parties had an actual chance of winning. Even though there are clearly more than two political viewpoints in the US, because human beings are rational actors (for the most part), they understand that if they don't want to "waste" their vote, they have to chose whichever of the two parties they most closely alight with, even if they do not agree with the entirety of its platform. The two party system unfortunately makes it seem like there ARE only two viewpoints, and exaggerates the polarization among the people. Studies show that most US citizens are moderates, either identifying as center-left or center-right. Political parties in the US, however, are often more "extreme" than the people they represent. The monopoly over their constituency allows the loudest voices in the party to be heard, and the rest have no choice but to go along with it.
    TLDR: more options = the more likely the government is to be reflective of the peoples' values and concerns
    I could go on forever about how parliamentary systems are less corrupt and more efficient but others have already talked about that

  • Presidential Goverment is better always.

    Presidential government president is head of both government and state. And he is elected direclty by people, like in the united states. So each citizen is a part of it. And the head of the house of representatives and senate are diffrent and could be diffrent from the party president belongs. That makes its difficult to rule for the president. Here the president is the national icon, has power to veto.

    But in parliament no one get direclty elected example in india. And the president doesint have veto power. And he is not the cheif executive of the nation, nor a icon representing foreign relations. But simply he is the head of the state with limitted power by ploitical party.

    Always the political party can rule it easily and the party enjoys more power and becomes like dictator. And it will leads to more and more curruption with in the parliament and all the goverment system includes military.

  • Overall, presidential form of government is better than parliamentary form of government.

    Being more democratic compared to parliamentary form of government, presidential government is better and favorable for the people as they can participate directly in choosing their leader. Beyond that, check and balances would prevent the government from any abuses as the other department can always check the other, unlike in parliamentary form where the ruling party(government) can do anything without restriction. Lastly, stability is present in presidential form as the president has a fixed term of office compared to parliamentary where the prime minister can be removed anything by vote of no confidence.

  • Presidential system is better

    I am a citizen of India, by birth, and a retired HSC physics / chemistry. I have exercised my franchise of voting in many elections. Therefore my following points will be useful in having a true government, which will really take care of the society.

    1) First of all, I am against the parliamentary system because it grossly violates the basic principle of democracy – that is “for the people, from the people by the people”. As a result, in our country political parties have been mushrooming in the last 66 years, this trend automatically puts an obstacle for having proper governance. On the other hand, these parties make adverse effect on the governance. Therefore I think, we have to adopt the presidential system just like in the USA, ruling and opposing.
    2) Secondly, in my opinion, a democratic system cannot survive if its foundation is having *religious* cracks and therefore there should not any concession based on any *religious factor* in the national and provincial governance. Every rule, law, act in the governance must be based on natural science. As a retired science teacher, let me state one important fact. For Nature, every child by birth is a *Homo sapiens* and Nature records death of a person as death of a Homo sapiens – not as a Hindu or a Muslim or a Christian. And hence I firmly believe that concession based on *religion* must stopped.

    If these reforms are implemented today, we will have to wait for at least 25 years to see the fruits. But we must do it, if we really want to change the gloomy picture of 50 years.

  • Where is the checks and balances in parliamentary??

    When a specific political party controls the House of Commons, they get to choose who is the prime minister and they basically don't have any opposition, so they can pass any law without review or consent of a judge or a group of people to say no and ask to revise. The only difference between a dictatorship and parliamentary is the fact that in parliamentary, there are a lot more people, and the can be voted out in 5 years. Anybody who has the majority in parliamentary basically (not literally) rules the country.

  • A parliamentary form of government is not better than a presidential form of government.

    Although a parliamentary system works in some countries, a presidential system is usually better. Sometimes, a country needs a strong executive who can act quickly in times of danger. A country also needs a clear leader to take charge sometimes. A president is better able to handle problems than a prime minister.

  • Cuz obama is the best

    Obama 3rd term pls Obama 3rd term pls Obama 3rd term plsObama 3rd term plsObama 3rd term plsObama 3rd term plsObama 3rd term plsObama 3rd term plsObama 3rd term plsObama 3rd term plsObama 3rd term plsObama 3rd term plsObama 3rd term plsObama 3rd term plsObama 3rd term plsObama 3rd term pls

  • Presidential is better than parliamentary

    Checks and balances system protect people's rights and democracy more, and only presidential form of government provides checks and balances.

    A parliamentary form of government is not better than a presidential form of government. Although a parliamentary system works in some countries, a presidential system is usually better. Sometimes, a country needs a strong executive who can act quickly in times of danger. A country also needs a clear leader to take charge sometimes. A president is better able to handle problems than a prime minister.

  • Presidential systems need to be done properly

    If the presidential system is done correctly, it can be more effective that a parliamentary system. Whilst America's political system is flawed, many other nations that have a presidential system have included provisions that solve many of the issues seen in American politics, such as: government shutdowns, pork-barrel spending, etc.

    The presence of an external Government, separate from the legislature, allows the President to develop and implement creative and innovative policies. In parliamentary systems, the consent of the Cabinet is usually required before an issue is even considered; however, in a presidential system, because there is no need for this consensus, the President can implement his/her vision without the repercussions of being deposed by the party. However, in order for this to be effective, private donations and political campaign financing have been heavily regulated; otherwise the President may implement policies favoured by his/her donors, rather than the people. This is one of the biggest issue in American politics.

    The most important thing about getting a presidential system 'right' is that the President should be constitutionally vested with the responsibility to control the budget and the finances of the nation. Why Congress needs to appropriate funds or is the only branch of authority that can, is simply beyond me. The only branch of authority that should be able to appropriate funds is the executive, not Congress, because it's the executive that is charge of the entire bureaucracy, which needs funds in order to provide services to the people. Congress' role is only to approve laws and not make them, as such. The President should be at the fore-front in policy-making as he/she has the resources to rely upon in ensuring that policies are well-considered and effectively implemented.

  • It is much better

    As in the first statement that president form of government is not corrupt is wrong statement as it involves much corruption, dis cooperation and dis coordination. It is not good as some times place for portfolios of leaders make political instability and corrupt the political leaders. The poor and needy go convinced when the people offer something like money which really favor the politicians and majority them. But later we suffer because of unhelpful government. So i prefer that parliamentary or president form of government is not good

  • It is much better

    As in the first statement that president form of government is not corrupt is wrong statement as it involves much corruption, dis cooperation and dis coordination. It is not good as some times place for portfolios of leaders make political instability and corrupt the political leaders. The poor and needy go convinced when the people offer something like money which really favor the politicians and majority them. But later we suffer because of unhelpful government. So i prefer that parliamentary or president form of government is not good


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.