By Barrington Roy Schiller (#BarringtonRoySchiller)
It is election season, and elections have already been held in the European Union while in the UK, a new government is ready to take office while TV channels fill their 24/7 schedules discussing all the elections on both sides of the Atlantic with uninformed commentaries and discuss Polls, the likely outcomes, future Prime Ministers, and Presidents. However, participating in these elections is not compulsory, so nothing is certain until the votes have been counted, and even then, some may contest the “count”.
However, despite news anchors throwing the words “Prime Minister” and “President” in the same sentence, they are elected heads of political parties, and most of their electorate have little understanding of how the systems that put them in their positions differ, and regularly confuse the Parliamentary and Presidential systems.
This Briefing aims to discuss the benefits and disbenefits of adopting either a presidential executive system or a parliamentary executive system for a new state. The choice of executive system is particularly critical when considering constitutional design, and both systems have equal legitimacy and rivalling authoritative sources, making it difficult to resolve any dispute. so, for practical purposes, I will, therefore, initially examine and present the salient points of each system to enable the reader to come to their own conclusion about which system is preferential for their particular leadership style.
In each system, we find three main components, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, and each is of equal importance in representing the people and enabling the efficiency of a democratic system, but in both systems, it is generally considered wise to separate the powers of each of the components. Although the roots of the idea of separating these powers can be found in the works of Aristotle, modern writers like Jean Bodin in the 16th century, John Locke in the 17th century and Montesquieu, the French jurist, who discussed it in detail in his book “the spirit of laws “(published in 1748) all seemed to believe that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely “so power should be spread between the components to enable a system of checks and balances.
Leadership should, therefore, initially consider not if there should be checks and balances and a separation of powers but more the quantity they wish to have in the executive system of the new state when examining the systems in more detail to fully understand the implications of their decision.
Scholars, such as Juan Linz, claim that “A presidential system generally has more checks and balances but tends not to enable change as rapidly as that of a parliamentary system”2. so the new state leadership should not only consider the quantity of checks and balances they wish to have but also how easy they wish to make a change of leadership possible.
It should also be borne in mind that although I have been asked to evaluate only a presidential or a parliamentary system there are actually multiple variations which cannot be completely ignored. Some examples of these are: Absolute monarchies, Constitutional monarchies, executive presidency linked to a parliament, Full presidential republics, Parliamentary constitutional monarchies, Parliamentary republics, Presidential republics and Semi-presidential republics. In some States, the constitution even stipulates just one party or even a coalition, and in others, it has even suspended the provision of government.
In simple terms, the electorate in a Presidential system elects a Person as a President, whereas in a Parliamentary system, the electorate elects a political party, and the members of that party choose a leader to become Prime Minister. This often leads to the electorate claiming that the person was unelected by them.
Analysis
In a full presidential system (as in the USA), the President is both the head of state and the head of the executive (government). There is no prime minister, although if there ever was to be one, they would serve purely “at the pleasure of the president”. When the US Constitution was written the essential consideration of the system was the separation of powers between those who make the laws (the legislature) and those who enforce the laws (the executive), so the Constitution of the USA divided the power amongst the branches to prevent any President, as the leader, from becoming like George 3rd of England who they had seen as tyrannical. Power was therefore distributed between several branches, with laws made by “the legislature”, the executive (the branch that undertakes the daily administration and execution and enforcement) and another branch to interpret the laws, “the judiciary”. The President can, however, use decrees of executive orders to pass and enforce certain decisions so the executive, which consists of the President, his office or multiple offices, can commonly become the originator of regulations, and the President can veto legislation which he disproves of being passed and becoming law.
When considering which system to adopt, it should also be considered that as well as an executive branch, any new State would also need other main actors. The president holds office for a fixed term, and it is customary for the President to also become the “Head of state” as well as “commander in chief”. This combination gives the President a larger impact on the State’s foreign policy than a Prime Minister of a parliament would have as it is the “head of State” that receives the Ambassadors from foreign states. A President does not choose the legislature, but the legislature can block certain top positions he proposes, and his choices for top positions like Judges also need the senate’s approval. Once approved, however they can only be removed for gross misconduct like the President, who can only be removed before the end of his fixed period if impeached. The legislature can also not be removed before the end of their fixed term, but there are no limits as to how often they can be re-elected, unlike a President.
When comparing the Presidential system with a Parliamentary system (such as that of the UK, in which the monarch does not exercise power), we find some overlap as decisions of the executive (the government) can be affected by the whips ordering their opposition members of parliament to vote in a particular manner and tow the party line, but there are also major differences. The Prime minister is neither head of state nor commander in chief. It is “His Majesty’s government” that he leads after selecting ministers from the legislature (parliament), but she is the head of state and commander in chief, and she asks him to form a government and refers to it as her government in the King’s speech.
In the parliamentary system, a British prime minister now also has a fixed term and can only be removed by a vote of no-confidence, but in that case, new elections for the legislature must be held, not just for a new Prime Minister. Although parliament can be removed by the head of state at any time, this happens in reality only if requested by the Prime Minister. The UK parliamentary system is referred to as the Westminster system and is more adversarial than other types. Seating is arranged with Members of parliament facing each other like choir benches in the knave of a church, and the plenary has more influence than committees. The Franchise elects a named candidate, and although the UK uses a “first past the post” system, other voting systems, such as proportional representation, are also possible and considered by those who get fewer seats in Parliament as being “unfair” as it does not reflect the total percentage of votes they receive. In the Western European model, which is used in Germany and Spain, seats are arranged in a semi-circle, so it is less adversarial, and the franchise uses proportional representation more than in the Westminster model. In the Netherlands and Sweden, ministers resign when elected to ensure an even stronger separation of powers.
It also appears appropriate to mention the fifth republic of France, a system which seems barely presidential nor parliamentary but is referred to as semi-presidential and in which the President accepts a reduction in daily government in return for a larger foreign policy influence.
Cautionary Notes
Juan Linz provides an influential view that Presidentialism is more likely to lead to regime collapse or at least political instability.1 based on the developments in Latin America during the 1960s and 70s.
Separating powers makes the assumption that the three branches are equal and can result in the government not being able to work together efficiently and can result in deadlocks, which can possibly cause a standstill or shutdown in the government, as has been seen in approving even the budget in the USA.
The British Philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873) predicted that separating powers would cause the legislature, executive and judiciary to compete for importance, seeing only their own organ as important.
It can also be argued that unless the executive has judicial powers, officers can feel insecure while carrying out their duties.
The head of state need not necessarily be the de facto leader or the person who oversees the administration or matters of state but can be chosen to carry out a purely ceremonial and representative role (3) and act more as a symbol of the state than the actual head of government who is usually the de-facto overseer regarding all state matters and their administration.
In the 21st century, society has changed considerably since the original works of Montesquieu, and in this day and age, we cannot ignore the influences of modern civil institutions on government, which were not relevant in 1787 at the time of the signing of the US Constitution whether they be for a presidential or parliamentary system.
Fiscal Considerations
Whichever system is chosen, it should be borne in mind that it is the legislature that has the power of the purse and not the executive in both systems.
Conclusion and Recommended Action
To conclude, it would appear that even though Presidential systems with their emphasis on separation of powers generally appear to be more unstable and more likely to result in a breakdown of a regime, there is no empirical evidence outside of Western Europe and Latin America due to the quantity of differing presidential systems and parliamentary executive systems in the form of monarchies so having presented both systems and in particular the benefits and disbenefits and checks and balances in both systems only the report reader and decision-maker can decide how fit for their purpose adopting one system or another may be for the new state.
REFERENCES
1.Juan Linz. 1990. ‘The Perils of Presidentialism.’ Journal of Democracy 1(1): 51-69; Juan Linz and Arturo Valenzuela. Eds.1994. The Failure of Presidential Democracy: The Case of Latin America. The Johns Hopkins Press; Juan Linz and Alfred Stephan. 1996. Problems of Democratic Consolidation. Johns Hopkins Press; Arendt Lijphart. 1996. Ed. Presidential v. Parliamentary Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. T. St. John N. Bates (1986), “Parliament, Policy and Delegated Power” (PDF), Statute Law Review(Oxford: Oxford University Press).
3. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/head-of-state accessed 28th June 2015
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alfred Stepan and Cindy Skach. 1993. ‘Constitutional frameworks and democratic consolidation: Parliamentarism and presidentialism.
Arendt Lijphart. 1996. Ed. Presidential v. Parliamentary Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fred W. Riggs. 1997. ‘Presidentialism versus parliamentarism: Implications for representativeness and legitimacy.’ International Political Science Review, 18 (3): 253-278.
Giovanni Sartori. 1996. Comparative Constitutional Engineering: An inquiry into structures, incentives and outcomes. London: Macmillan.
José Cheibub, Adam Przeworski, and S. M. Saiegh. 2004. ‘Government coalitions and legislative success under presidentialism and parliamentarism.’ British Journal Of Political Science 34: 565;
Norris, P. 2008. Driving democracy. chapter 6 pp1 – 31. Cambridge University Press.
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/Driving%20Democracy/Chapter%206.pdf accessed 3rd July 2015
