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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
I can infer that the parliamentary system is better. This is because unlike a presidential system, In a parliamentary system, The head of state (e. G. President/Monarch) is separate from the head of government (e. G. Prime Minister/Premier). This is more democratic as separate people oversee separate things. Also, In a parliamentary system, The President (if it is a republic) and Prime Minister/Premier are not elected directly, But through a general election in which the Members of Parliament (MPs) are elected. However, In a presidential system, The heads of state and government are both directly elected through a presidential election. Hence, The parliamentary system is better than the presidential system.
Any system of governance is prone to exploitation and corruption, Be it a presidential or a parliamentary democracy. So, One has to look at it from an outside view, With regards to such a question. I come from a parliamentary democracy (India) and I have seen both the upsides and downsides of such a system. However, Taking specific examples to showcase a perspective, Takes away from the main comparison and goes into contextual differences of those examples. Therefore, Speaking from a solely theoretical point of view, From what I've read, I feel a parliamentary system allows for a better representation and allows for division of power, Which results in (or should result in) a system where no one person is completely free to make a decision. The Executive in a Parliamentary system needs to be elected by the people and is inherently tied to the Legislature. While I agree that a President too, Does have to answer to a legislature and that the legislature in a Presidential system is strong enough for that system, I still feel that there is better scope for representation of the people's thoughts in a parliamentary system and that one single person has less of a concentration of power than in a presidential system, Which is a desirable aspect.
The Legislature has its limitations as laws are almost same in all free countries. It the is Executive branch that shapes the narrative of the nation. So while choosing a presidential candidate you have lesser variety and acceptance compared to Parliamentary system. The disconnect of people from their government is higher in Presidential System.
Sam date me please baby i will do anything for you. Every class i have with you i feel so electric. There is an unspoken spark between us. Please notice me. Jwidbgfjksdbfgk kjdfskjbnsdg dskjbfgkdsjb kdjsbfkjsdb kjsbf kjb jb i b h ub ujb jub ujb ub ju bu bu b date me or else.
I really agree with the parliamentary because it seems right, The presidential just is not the correct way to go in my oinion. Ogre's are like onion, They have layers, And they smell. And that ladies and gentlemen is why the parliamentary is much better than the presidential system, Thank you for coming to my TED talk
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
adhgfja bna ag aslfhdsalf hasjkgh as;khgla jsk ghlkadshgf adjksayads hkadhshfkashgkl aslkalj kh jhk jmk j kjkjkj k jk j k jk j k j k j k j k j khoihoiuhiu kui hgig hk g hk g kjhg g yg ouyg og ol g lyuog cvf
The basic difference between the two forms of government is that in presidential form of government , the president is directly elected through the general election by the common public and in parliamentary form of government, the prime minister is elected by the elected members in the assembly.
So, presidential form of government is more beneficial than the other, because people are able to choose their leader themselves in a direct way and he’s also answerable to Public rather than the parliament as the PM is dependent on the assembly, because assembly can change him by showing lack of confidence , So PM is not as free as a president in the presidential form of government. So more checks and balances can be maintained and the accountability process can be made crystal clear. The presidential form of government is more stable than the other. The president has a power to veto and so can take things in order.
The problem with parliamentary systems is that they concentrate to much power within individuals, as the PM is the effective executive and legislative head. This combined with the fact that parliamentary systems tend to have very tight party discipline which effectively turns the party leaders into party dictators who could effectively force their party members to vote and say exactly what they want, allows the PM to do whatever he wants if he has a majority. And keep in mind all of the parties would operate like this, so even if there is a coalition formed, the Pm just needs to befriend the other party bosses and they will in turn force their party members to vote in favor of the PM regardless of personal views. And do to this tight party discipline, the PM also has control over things such as the supreme court and the cabinet without any real checks and the system essentially becomes a patronage system where the PM nominates cronies to secretary of whatever.