Parliamentarism versus presidentialism in the policy arena (original) (raw)
Related papers
Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2003
Much current research in political science focuses on the impact which political institutions have on policy outcomes. A substantial body of this`neoinstitutional' work, often organized around the question,`Do institutions matter?', examines differences in the performance of presidential and parliamentary systems. The conventional wisdom in the literature has been that presidential and parliamentary systems tend to select different policies and exhibit different patterns of policy change. But the key question is whether the two different kinds of institutional systems should necessarily be expected to choose different policies or exhibit different patterns of policy change. This paper emphasizes that one cannot draw valid inferences about the nature of policy choice and policy change in different kinds of institutional systems just by considering the institutional rules alone. Instead, if we wish to compare the nature of policy choice and policy change in the different systems, it is essential to consider the interaction between the institutional rules and the policy preferences of the individual of®ceholders in these systems. And what must be compared involves the sets of policy equilibria produced by each of the systems. When these policy equilibria are systematically compared across institutional systems, the results about policy choice and policy change do not always support the inference that`institutions matter'. KEY WORDS . parliamentary systems . policy change . political institutions . preference pro®les . presidential systems Journal of Theoretical Politics 15(2): 145±200
Beyond Presidentialism and Parliamentarism
British Journal of Political Science, 2013
The presidential-parliamentary distinction is foundational to comparative politics and at the center of a large theoretical and empirical literature. However, an examination of constitutional texts suggests a fair degree of heterogeneity within these categories with respect to important institutional attributes. These observations indicate that the classic presidential-parliamentary distinction, and the semi-presidential category, may not be systemic. This article investigates whether the defining attributes that separate presidential and parliamentary constitutions predict other attributes that are stereotypically associated with these institutional models. The results suggest the need for considerable skepticism of the ‘systemic’ nature of the classification. Indeed, the results imply that in order to predict the powers of a country's executive and legislature, it is more useful to know where and when the constitution was written than whether the country has a presidential or ...
The democratic method offers a peculiar solution of one of the central problems of politics, which is the exercise of power by a leadership. Democracy makes the holders of the power accountable for their actions and decisions and fixes such accountability in a relatively rigid institutional framework made of roles, procedural resources and arenas of interaction among the roles. The institutional design of the democratic political systems has attracted much attention both from the legal and political perspective, because it affects the actual distribution of power among the political actors and the effectiveness of their decisions. The article reviews critically some of the most influential classifications of the democratic institutional design, with particular reference to the triangular interactions among Presidents, Governments, and Parliaments. Moving from the assumption that the arrangements among these three top political institutions identify the main patterns of the democratic government, the distinction among Parliamentary, Presidential, and Semi-Presidential systems set by the constitutional law is rejected and a new classification schema is advanced. In this new perspective the institutional design of democracy consists of institutional roles of authority, procedural resources attached to them and arenas of the interactions among the roles.
Constitutional Political Economy, 2020
The institutional design of democratic regimes has attracted much attention from a legal and political perspective, because it affects the actual distribution of power among political actors and the effectiveness of their decisions. The article advances a classification of the democratic institutional design, with particular reference to the triangular interactions among Presidents, Governments, and Parliaments. Moving from the assumption that the arrangements among these three top political institutions identify the main patterns of the democratic government, the distinction among Parliamentary, Presidential, and Semi-Presidential systems set by the constitutional law is rejected and a new classification schema is advanced. In this new perspective, the institutional design of democracy consists of the institutional roles of authority, procedural resources attached to them and arenas of confrontation among the roles.
Annual Review of Political Science, 2002
We review arguments and empirical evidence found in the comparative literature that bear on the differences in the survival rates of parliamentary and presidential democracies. Most of these arguments focus on the fact that presidential democracies are based on the separation of executive and legislative powers, while parliamentary democracies are based on the fusion of these powers. From this basic distinction several implications are derived which would lead to radically different behavior and outcomes under each regime. We argue that this perspective is misguided and that we cannot deduce the functioning of the political system from the way governments are formed. There are other provisions, constitutional or otherwise, that also affect the way parliamentary and presidential democracies operate and that may counteract some of the tendencies that we would expect to observe if we were to derive the regime's performance from its basic constitutional principle.
Systems of Government: Parliamentarism and Presidentialism
Parliamentary and Presidential Democracies: Which One is Best? With the exception of the United States, where a system of separation of executive and legislative powers exists, all countries that are considered to be stable democracies adopt a constitution that is, at least partially, parliamentary. A parliamentary constitution is characterized by the fusion of executive and legislative powers, achieved by the fact that the government needs the confidence of a majority in the legislative assembly in order to come to and remain in power. Parliamentarism is popular among both academics and politicians. The main reasons for this follow from the crucial distinction between parliamentarism and presidentialism: the fact that under parliamentarism legislatures may remove the government via the approval of a vote of no-confidence. When such votes are passed, either a new government is formed or, in case this is not possible, new elections are held. Under presidentialism, in turn, the government and the legislature serve fixed and independent terms in office. T This basic difference is thought to produce a number of consequences for the way these systems operate: • • • • Under presidentialism, it is thought, governments are not likely to be supported by a majority of the legislature since there is nothing in the system that guarantees that such a majority will exist. Deadlocks between the government and the legislature, thus, would be common under presidentialism and would lead to conflict between the two powers. Coalitions in presidential regimes are thought to be rare, again due to the fact that noting in the system would provide the incentives for individual politicians and their political parties to cooperate with one another and the government. Decision-making under presidentialism is normally considered to be decentralized, that is, to be such that the president simply responds to proposals originated in the legislature, which is, in turn, organized in such a way as to allow for politicians to pursue individualistic rather than partisan strategies. As a consequence, the government's ability to influence and implement policy is reduced and " crises of governability " are more likely to occur. Together, thus, these observations may seem to make a compelling case that countries seeking to establish a lasting democratic order should adopt a parliamentary form of government. Yet, none of these arguments is sufficient to make a presidential regime an unattractive choice per se. To begin with, democracies at low levels of income per capita face high risks of collapse, regardless of their form of government. As a matter of fact, when per capita income is less than $1,000 (in 1985 PPP USD), parliamentary democracies are more likely to die (that is, to become a dictatorship) than presidential democracies: the expected life of the former is 7 years whereas the expected life of the latter is 10 years. The difference is not very large and hence not much should be made of it. What matters is that, at low levels of income, both types of democracy face equally high risks, with the form of government making little difference for the survival prospects
The Prime Essentialities of Presidential and Parliamentary Governance on The Globe
INTEGRATED RESEARCH JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SCIENCE AND INNOVATION, 2019
The establishment of democracy in countries with no prior democratic experience, its reestablishment in countries that had experienced periods of authoritarian rule, and the expansion in the number of independent states following the demise of European and Soviet communism led to the adoption of democracy in most countries. As a result of these changes, attention has been focused on constitutional rules that guide competition for and the exercise of political authority under democracy. Democratic governments are those that permit the nation’s citizens to manage their government either directly or through elected representatives. This is opposed to authoritarian governments that limit or prohibit the direct participation of its citizens. One of the fundamental aspects of constitutional design is the choice between presidential government, parliamentary government and a hybrid system that combines some aspects of these two. A main difference between the presidential and the parliamentary systems of governance is as a result of how that states executive, legislative and judiciary organs are organized.
Perils of parliamentarism? Political systems and the stability of democracy revisited
Democratization, 2009
Parliamentary systems are generally regarded as superior to presidential ones in democratic sustenance. This article contributes to the debate on the relationship between systems of government and the survival of democracy by bringing in a new perspective and analysing the experiences of 131 democracies during 1960-2006. We argue that systems of government do matter, but their effects are indirect; they exert their influence through societies' prior democratic records. Confirming the conventional argument, our data analysis shows that uninterrupted parliamentary democracies face significantly lower risks of a first breakdown than their presidential counterparts. Contrary to the common understanding, however, we find that the risk of a democratic breakdown can be higher for parliamentary regimes than for presidential regimes among the countries whose democracy has collapsed in the past. Furthermore, the risk of a previously failed democracy falling again grows as (the risk of) government crises increase(s). Hence our study questions the common belief that parliamentary systems are categorically more conducive to democratic stability than presidential ones.