Running Head: PRESIDENT AND PARLIAMENT

Presidentialism or Parliamentarism Systems in Coalition Government

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of the Institution]

Presidentialism or Parliamentarism Systems in Coalition Government

Introduction

There have been many optimistic expectations regarding the states of the world and

they are developing, in such a way that it is becoming democratic increasingly and supports

the peace-loving community in this new world system. However, after the harmonious

empires this world has seen many forms of pervasive violence that has been augmented by

struggles of promoting the collapse (Pereira and Melo, 2012). Hence, there should be support

in order to remove and minimise these collisions between the empires and the governments

that are leading towards terrorism and revolutionary violence. Consequently, there are to

main forms of democratic governments and that is Presidential and Parliamentary.

The Presidentialism refers towards the origins and illustrations of idea by United

States of America and Parliamentarism refers to developed forms of this perception by the

Western parts of Europe (Elgie, 2011). However, these are two types of segregated

governments which are different from each other, and different people with authorities in

different democratic nations choose amongst these two. Nevertheless it is an argument that

either parliament should be opted or presidential, perhaps this is an issue that can never be

judged or solved with just an analytical and critical point of view, it also need the support of

the people of nation, because they choose who is going to lead them and which type of

government should be chosen (Bagashka, 2012).

Discussion

As there are many nations in the world who are turning up to democratic government

types and are finding alternative constitutional arrangements for their countries. Countries

such as Chile, Turkey, Argentina and many more, policymakers are continually focusing on
 President and Parliament 3

the different aspects of the political regime (Bradley and Pinelli, 2012). Countries like Sri

Lanka has been successful in designing a political system that is presidential and is helping

them, as it is proving successful for them. As they have shifted from parliamentary to

presidential systems, it have proven to be beneficial for them. On the other hand there are

several countries like Latin Americans, which have proven that they are currently showing

smooth transitions, where they shifted from au authoritarianism to democratic types of

government and it has been stated that the parliamentary form of government has been

significantly contributed towards significant development (Robinson and Torvik, 2016).

However, on the other hand there are some other countries which has shown that

parliamentary states can also be significantly important in peace keeping and maintaining

coalition government in the state, for e.g. Spanish government. Several case studies have

reveal that Presidentialism is not pretty unstable as it can fall apart significantly and can be

leading towards the fall of the nation (Szoboszlai, 2018). There are many examples such as,

the United States is the only state that is been able to maintain its position as a state that has

been working on democratic government and Presidentialism. Nevertheless, on the contrary

there have been many countries that have fallen due to the overconsumption or over use of

power, such as, Chile managed to handle the presidential power for over a century and half,

but it was not able to carry it further under the presidential government and feel short, due to

which in 197s they were broke down (Bradley and Pinelli, 2012). Indeed, it has been argued

that all of the stable governments that are currently operating in the world are based on the

regimes that are parliamentary and the power of executives is generated from the majorities

of the legislative, where it is dependent upon these majorities in order to survive (Bagashka,

2012). Where, in the case of France and Finland, there is no true and real presidential

systems, they are just a hybrid of it, where the jury is still out in the case of French Fifth

Republic (Pereira and Melo, 2012).

On the contrary, it has been argued that the regimes that are based on the

parliamentary systems can also indicate that they are unstable in nature and particularly under

the conditions, where there is a bitter ethnic conflict (Malamud, 2014). In these types of

situations, the parliamentary governments are likely to fail, as it can be seen in the

attestations of African history. However, still in the experiences of some Asian countries such

as India and several countries which are English speaking in the Caribbean, have been

indicating that even when societies are significantly divided, it is not necessary that

parliamentary crisis that are functioning for a smaller period of time, might be a regime that

will fall and will be blown away and also it does not marks the end of democracy itself and

the ousting of the prime minister and his or her cabinet (Wilson, 2018).

In the Presidential systems, a person is elected as the executive who has all the

excessive powers, such as considerably the constitutional powers, which also includes the

controlling powers of composing a cabinet and deciding the administration (Özbudun, 2012).

This executive is elected by the people of the nation for fixed term and is not dependent on

the votes of confidence from the parliaments. The executive or the president is not only the

person with excessive holding executive power, but it also symbolises as the representative

and head of the state (Özbudun, 2012). However, it should also be noted that the president

can only be removed between elections through the means of drastically undertaken steps of

impeachment. The point that leads to failure and instability is that it is showing lesser and

weaker cooperation of presidential systems with the legislature and that is the reason, due to

which presidential systems are not able to form a system that is based on the coalition

government, which ultimately leads to breakdown and end of democracy (Kim, 2015).

Therefore, it is a significant need that vital relationship and cooperation between the

legislative power and executive should be considered and established. Ultimately, it stresses

that the presidential holding is powerful enough that it can be leading to the instability of the
 President and Parliament 5

government through the means of using excessive power, where it can also be stated that the

presidential power can be used excessively and it is correct that Presidentialism is more

power concentrating (Robinson and Torvik, 2016).

Where on the contrary side, it is essential that parliamentary power should be

essentially and critically considered. Where regarding these forms of government, it can be

strictly stated that Parliamentarism is the only possible solution to handle the issue of

excessive power, where it ensures the distribution of powers amongst the authorised parties

or personnel. Similarly, it seems that the parliamentary systems can be found as a

democratically legitimate solution (Robinson and Torvik, 2016). Hence, in these types of

systems the government and their authority is completely relying on the confidence of the

parliaments. In these types of systems it is clear that these governments form a significant

communication and cooperation with the legislature and is helpful towards the economies of

state, where it is promoting the stability. Furthermore, the Parliamentarism is also working

towards the coalition of power and stability in the state (Bradley and Pinelli, 2012). However,

there has been a growing interest of party leadership in some regimes of the parliaments,

which are creating the roles of a prime minister, where they seem more like the presidents;

where it is proved sometimes that barring the dissolution of parliament, and having the calls

for new elections, premiers are not able to directly appeal to the people over the heads of their

representatives (Wilson, 2018).

However, these systems and regimes can include presidents, who can be elected by

the people by the means of direct popular vote, yet still they are usually lacking the

capabilities to compete with prime ministers for power (Elgie, 2011). Nevertheless, it is

important to critique that the parliamentary systems can only be useful, where they are

forming and resulting in the coalition government. Though they can fail at times, but they

have still some impact which is better than the Presidentialism, where it is consuming power
 President and Parliament 6

and on the other hand the Parliamentarism is working with the stability because it can

distribute significant powers to the authorities in order to maintain the stability in the

government and also in the nation (Chaisty et al., 2014).

Conclusion

After the analysis and discussion, it can be concluded that the Presidentialism has

been proving its worth in some states, where it maintaining sustainability and stability.

However, on the other hand due to the excessive use of concentrating powers it has also lead

the nations to downfall in such a manner that it cannot be backed up again, such as Chile.

USA has been successful in maintaining their democracy through their Presidentialism, but

still it lacks stability. Nevertheless, on the other side of the democratic panel it has been

stated that Parliamentarism is a useful, much more feasible and stable form of democratic

government that can be leading toward the stability of the nation, where it is not using the

excessive powers and is also working towards the cause of the balance of power. Therefore,

the parliamentary systems should be a dominating choice over the Presidentialism; however,

it should only be opted where it is forming the coalition government and not working in the

similar manner of Presidentialism.

References

Arnold, C., Doyle, D. and Wiesehomeier, N., 2017. Presidents, policy compromise, and

legislative success. The Journal of Politics, 79(2), pp.380-395.

Bagashka, T., 2012. Presidentialism and the Development of Party Systems in Hybrid

Regimes: Russia 2000–2003. Europe-Asia Studies, 64(1), pp.91-113.

Bradley, A.W. and Pinelli, C., 2012. Parliamentarism. In The Oxford Handbook of

Comparative Constitutional Law.

Chaisty, P., Cheeseman, N. and Power, T., 2014. Rethinking the ‘presidentialism debate’:

conceptualizing coalitional politics in cross-regional

perspective. Democratization, 21(1), pp.72-94.

Elgie, R., 2011. Presidentialism, parliamentarism and semi-presidentialism: Bringing parties

back in. Government and Opposition, 46(3), pp.392-409.

Kim, Y.H., 2015. A troubled marriage? Divided minority government, cohabitation,

presidential powers, president-parliamentarism and semi-

presidentialism. Government and Opposition, 50(4), pp.652-681.

Malamud, A., 2014. Presidentialist decision making in Latin American foreign policy:

examples from regional integration processes. In Routledge handbook of Latin

America in the world (pp. 124-136). Routledge.

Özbudun, E., 2012. Presidentialism vs. Parliamentarism in Turkey. Policy Brief, 1.

Pereira, C. and Melo, M.A., 2012. The surprising success of multiparty

presidentialism. Journal of Democracy, 23(3), pp.156-170.

Robinson, J.A. and Torvik, R., 2016. Endogenous presidentialism. Journal of the European

Economic Association, 14(4), pp.907-942.

Szoboszlai, G., 2018. Parliamentarism in the making: Crisis and political transformation in

Hungary. In Institutional Design In New Democracies (pp. 117-136). Routledge.

Wilson, F.L., 2018. The study of political institutions. In New Directions In Comparative

Politics (pp. 189-210). Routledge.