Presidential v.

Parliamentary

The other day I was telling a friend of mine, who is going to school in Germany next year, about
the German political system. For those unaware, Germany has a parliamentary system. As
Americans, we are only pretty much familiar with a Presidential system. In brief, a Presidential
system is when a President, chief executive, or head of state, is elected separately from the
legislature. For example- Here in America, we vote for President. We also vote for Congress. In
a parliamentary system, we would vote for our local representatives, who would choose a Prime
Minister from among the Members of Parliament. (MPs)

As I was talking, I was in my head debating the merits of each system; clearly there is no chance
America is going to switch to a Parliamentary system, we are the world’s oldest-continuous
Presidential system. But if we had the chance, should we?

The main benefit of a Presidential system, I decided, was stability. Of all the countries in the
world, Presidential systems tend to be more stable. Governments don't fall or collapse as often.
In the US, we've never had a governmental collapse. Because voters directly choose their leader,
they are less inclined to bring them down than if they perceive to have no real choice in the
matter. For example- If in 2004, voters couldn't stand President Bush, he would have probably
been ousted. In the UK, if voters hated Tony Blair, the only real way to remove him would be to
vote out his entire party.

In addition, outside of elections, it is extremely difficult to bring down a President. I like this
aspect of Presidential systems for the majority. It does allow a certain amount of
authoritarianism, and as such, these countries generally lean right-ward; On the other hand,
Presidents generally can't be taken out just because of a sudden wave of unpopularity. This
allows voters to be a bit more wholistic in their choosing. Yes, there is a certain degree of
forgetfulness that puts more emphasis on election-year happenings, however the overall state of
economy, foreign policy, and domestic policies ensure a better look at things.

On the other hand, as I've mentioned, the Presidential system is subject to more abuses by the
head of state. A President generally has quite a bit more power than a Prime Minister. In
addition, he has fewer electoral checks. For example- President Bush was elected twice. If he did
some not-so-good things in 2002, he still had until 2004 to make up for it. If he committed some
Watergate-style scandals, he would have to be impeached to be removed, which is not easy. A
Prime Minister is more-or-less always subject to being removed. If Prime Minister Blair did
something extremely unpopular, the Tories could force a Vote of No Confidence, bring down the
government, and schedule elections.

The advantages of the Parliamentary system are more accountability, as I see it. The omnipresent
threat of a Vote of No Confidence generally keeps a Prime Minister in line. For example, the
NSA-spying fiasco could have brought down President Bush had he instead been Prime Minister
Bush presiding over the United States Parliament.

It also forces a tighter relationship between the legislative branch and the executive, as we'll call
the Prime Minister for comparison purposes. The Prime Minister IS a Member of Parliament. He
has to attend meetings, vote, etc. Presidents don't. I read somewhere about how infrequently US
Presidents have visited Congress. They don't need to; they work through their party on the side.
While this may get the job done, it can also lead to strained Congressional-Presidential relations.

Downside of Parliamentary systems is its major instability- Governments fall often, elections are
held constantly, and coalitions between parties contribute. Parties sometimes have to participate
in coalitions to create a majority to sustain a Prime Minister. If a government is extremely
splintered among parties, this can create extremely bad coalitions. One doesn't have to look any
farther than the current situation of Germany. The two dominant parties, the center-left Social
Democratic Party and center-right CDU/CSU Christian Democratic Union, are currently in a
Grand Coalition together. This isn't good. Imagine Republicans and Democrats sharing power
together. It's not quite the same, but you get the idea of the animosity between the two. It
probably won't last.

This all having been said, I prefer the Presidential system because of its stability and division of
power. Though the President has significantly more power, there are many checks and balances
on that power. I think the Parliamentary system has a lot of merits, and the hybrid
Parliamentary/Presidential systems (i.e. - France) are interesting enough, to say the least. But I
think in many cases, France has combined the worst of the two parts; the instability of
Parliament and the overpowering presence of a President. They've already been through 5
incarnations of a Republic, however, so I wouldn't be shocked to see another in the future.

Posted by Aaron @