I decided to start this discussion because I noticed how parliamentary democracies often outperform presidential ones, despite there are exceptions to the rules as well.

One striking example is that of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia (all parliamentary ex-Soviet republics) vs. Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia (all presidential ex-Soviet republics). All started out somewhat the same at their independence in 1991, yet to date, the former three have more civil liberties, more wealth and less (ethnic) conflicts than the latter three, that all seem to be plagued by war and corruption, even though perhaps in some way, the development of the South Caucasian countries towards presidentialism was inevitable due to the ethnic conflicts and hence a popular call towards "strong leadership".

On the other hand, the USA is still a pretty free country despite its presidential system, which is probably tempered by its federal system and its powerful political parties. Also, note that Turkey has a parliamentary democratic system, but is fairly authoritarian as well.

So are parliamentary democracies truly better democracies?

Your comparison between the Baltic states and the Caucasus states isn't too sound. Regardless of what government they have, the ethnic powder keg would exist regardless.

I think presidential democracies do have smoother transitions between elected governments, though.

Your comparison between the Baltic states and the Caucasus states isn't too sound. Regardless of what government they have, the ethnic powder keg would exist regardless.

The Baltic states all have a sizable Russian minority: While these were initially discriminated against, there was never any kind of ethnic violence as seen in the Caucasus. The best explanation is probably that powerful presidents have the political power as well as a strong incentive to use ethnic red-herring, while this is less so in parliamentary systems, where it may useful - to a certain extent - to cater to minorities.

The extent to which parliamentary democracies outperform presidential democracies at the most important point -democratic survival- is one of the truly remarkable findings of empirical political science. I'll (time permitting) write more about this later.

I think presidential democracies do have smoother transitions between elected governments, though.

In what way?

The reason the USA is still great is because it is not a presidential democracy. That may be changing since the Executive branch has been grabbing more authority than it deserves. It is actually a constitutional Republic that has a president.

I vastly prefer parliamentary to presidential. A parliamentary (not hybrid as in France) system tend to depoliticize the role of the actual Chief of State, who can act in a more symbollic manner to provide leadership precisely because he's in no way involved in the sausage-making. Of course, the ability of the individual to provide leadership will be what it is, but the point is, they won't be an instant divisive figure on account of having been elected on the promise of policies that nearly half the country dislikes, and then either succeeding or failing at carrying them out.

Fundamentally, with a parliamentary system, if the chief of state is a good speaker, inspirational person, etc, he can do that job without being hampered by political involvement in the lawmaking debates. If he's inept, or has loathsome ideas, he can be safely ignored due to not having any actual power. At worse it does no harm; at best it can do quite a good bit of good.

The reason the USA is still great is because it is not a presidential democracy. That may be changing since the Executive branch has been grabbing more authority than it deserves. It is actually a constitutional Republic that has a president.

What? The US has been run by its executive branch almost unchecked ever since it started building up its empire. It primacy was tested during the wars of the 19th century, was contained up until WW2, but afterwards never again reined back.

Presidentialism, anywhere in the world, is the modern form of imperial government. All countries with substantial "imperial interests" out of borders have powerful executive branches. Some have theirs headed by prime-ministers (yes, I mean the UK), but the idea is the same: the executive branch gets a white card to do as it pleases about foreign policy and because of that it gets the same power to do as it pleases regarding internal security and spending on anything deemed a "national security interest".

Parliamentarian is a luxury of those countries that do not play the regional/world power games and do not have deep trouble inside borders either. Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia are presidential/dictatorial states because they're petty empires where the government in the capital capital is barely able to control the country. Not the opposite.

The reason the USA is still great is because it is not a presidential democracy. That may be changing since the Executive branch has been grabbing more authority than it deserves. It is actually a constitutional Republic that has a president.

In terms of political typology, the United States is the exemplar of a presidential republic.

The only advantage to a parliamentary system is that change is swift and decisive, but so is the possibility for destructive action. Once a party has attained a majority, they effectively control the state and can steamroll all of their policies into action, both good and bad, with nothing to stop the bad except the next election. A presidential system allows for greater checks and balances, but which often results in gridlock but mitigates against excesses. Getting anything done requires compromise, which results in slow and often half-hearted results.

So in the end, you pick your poison. Either you want slow, lumbering action of a presidential system, but with less chance of destruction, or you want the quick and decisive action of a parliamentary system, taking your chances with all its good and bad.

The choice between a Presidential/Parlimentary or Semi-Presidential system is completely up to the nation making the choice. They can all result in good or bad leadership depending on the choice of the electors.

I think presidential democracies do have smoother transitions between elected governments, though.
:confused: Smoother transitions? The current U.S. presidential election has been going on for more than a year! In Canada, the writ can be dropped a few days after a non-confidence vote, and less than 6 weeks later, we have a new government (hopefully).

I vastly prefer parliamentary to presidential. A parliamentary (not hybrid as in France) system tend to depoliticize the role of the actual Chief of State, who can act in a more symbollic manner to provide leadership precisely because he's in no way involved in the sausage-making. Of course, the ability of the individual to provide leadership will be what it is, but the point is, they won't be an instant divisive figure on account of having been elected on the promise of policies that nearly half the country dislikes, and then either succeeding or failing at carrying them out.

Fundamentally, with a parliamentary system, if the chief of state is a good speaker, inspirational person, etc, he can do that job without being hampered by political involvement in the lawmaking debates. If he's inept, or has loathsome ideas, he can be safely ignored due to not having any actual power. At worse it does no harm; at best it can do quite a good bit of good.
You're not referring to Canada, are you? 'Cause Harper is anything but symbolic, and the Governor-General doesn't usually do anything even vaguely resembling leadership. The Prime Minister appoints the Governor-General, who has NO policies to carry out. None. The GG is supposed to be a neutral representative of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth.

Harper is inept, and his ideas are loathsome - I get disgusted all over again every time I get my morning CBC newsfeed. But he cannot be ignored, and he has been amassing quite a lot of power.

So I can't imagine what sort of parliamentary system you're talking about, 'cause it sure isn't Canada's.

The reason the USA is still great is because it is not a presidential democracy. That may be changing since the Executive branch has been grabbing more authority than it deserves. It is actually a constitutional Republic that has a president.

And 2 is not an Even number because it is a Prime number.

There is no reason a Republic that is governed under a Constitution cannot be a Democracy using a presidential system.

The defining characteristic is that an Executive Branch is separate from the Legislative Branch and the head of the Executive Branch (the President) is the Head of State and Head of Government. The relative power of the Executive and Legislature can vary, as it has over timein the US.
This system is established by the US Constitution and has been present is the US since the Constitution went into effect.

I don't know but Poland has both a Prime Minister and President, so quite clearly there is some sort of conclusion that can be drawn from that to the benefit of this discussion.

The reason the USA is still great is because it is not a presidential democracy. That may be changing since the Executive branch has been grabbing more authority than it deserves. It is actually a constitutional Republic that has a president.
Presidential Republic and Constitutional Republic are not antonyms. Neither are Parliamentary Republic and Constitutional Republic.

Germany and the USA are both consitutional republics, but one is parliamentary while the other is presidential. The UK on the other hand is neither a republic nor does it have a constitution, but it still has a parliamentary system (at least in essence, I think the monarch could still nominate a prime minister who isn't backed by a parliamentary majority, but this would be quite a pointless exercise).

The only advantage to a parliamentary system is that change is swift and decisive, but so is the possibility for destructive action. Once a party has attained a majority, they effectively control the state and can steamroll all of their policies into action, both good and bad, with nothing to stop the bad except the next election. A presidential system allows for greater checks and balances, but which often results in gridlock but mitigates against excesses. Getting anything done requires compromise, which results in slow and often half-hearted results.

So in the end, you pick your poison. Either you want slow, lumbering action of a presidential system, but with less chance of destruction, or you want the quick and decisive action of a parliamentary system, taking your chances with all its good and bad.
This, essentially.

I think the "swift and decisive" change part is still a little exaggerated, because every parliamentary system I can think of is bicameral and so there can easily be a one chamber majority that stands against the other in the "upper house".

The main problem I have with presidential systems is that presidents are so damn hard to remove from office if one needs to. Parliamentary systems can get rid of their head of government easily, by vote of non-confidence, even if he/she didn't break any laws. This can also trigger re-elections if necessary. One might think that this is too unstable, but unless democracy itself is in danger in the respective country I don't see a problem with it. And presidential systems in states with antidemocratic sentiments bring even larger dangers, imo.

I also would strongly object if the there was a "line of succession" for the democratically elected head of government (or state!) in my country. It's just a plain undemocratic practice. I see the reason for having regulations in place to determine an interim president if the president died or is incapacitated for some time, but otherwise new elections should be held as quickly as possible.

I don't know if there's a valid argument for the suggestion that parliamentary republics are more successful. I do think that they're less prone to slow slides into dictatorships, though. And it's telling that most former Eastern bloc countries decided to become parliamentary republics and seem to get along well with that system.

I don't know but Poland has both a Prime Minister and President, so quite clearly there is some sort of conclusion that can be drawn from that to the benefit of this discussion.

Yeah, there aren't two points, but a scale you can move along.

A Parliamentary system effectively has all executive power in the hands of the legislature and the Head of State is either the same as the Head of Government and selected by the legislature or a separate person in a primarily figure head role (be it a Monarch or President).

A Presidential System has a separate body holding the executive power and is not part of the Legislature (though it usually holds a veto).

Semi-Presidential systems being everything in between, with executive power split between a Head of Government in the Legislature and Head of State that is separate to varying degrees that could make it more like a Parliamentary system or a Presidential system or somewhere in the middle.

There are advantages and disadvantages to any position on the spectrum.

The big advantage of Presidential systems (and coresponding weakness of Parliamentary systems) is the Stability. In some situations it can become nearly impossible for form a government in a parliamentary system that can hold confidence for any useful period of time, for example the French Fourth Republic changed it's Prime Minister 22 times over 12 years.
Whereas, you know the exact term of a Presidential executive after each election.

The Parliamentary system, when it can form an effective government, works more smoothly and tends to avoid political deadlock that often exists in Presidential systems as you don't have a separate executive branch that any law must get pushed through, just the legislature which the head of government must hold the confidence of.

Of course there are more factors, but those seem to be the biggest differences and many others stem from them (such as the speed that laws can be based and the ability for clean, sharp breaks).

The Semi-Presidential systems tend to balance those in different ways depending on how the power is shared.

I think the "swift and decisive" change part is still a little exaggerated, because every parliamentary system I can think of is bicameral and so there can easily be a one chamber majority that stands against the other in the "upper house".
Wiki shows that a fair number are unicameral. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system#Countries_with_a_parliamentar y_system_of_government) And even then many presidential systems are also bicameral, which means that you have to get three bodies to agree to most legislation, rather than the two of a bicameral Parliamentary system.

And beyond that, I know Canada is effectively unicameral. The Senate is effectively powerless, as was demonstrated by Mulroney with the GST. There were a total of 4 bills blocked by the Senate in the 1990s.
Though I don't know if there are any other countries in this situation.

I'm going to throw these pictures in the discussion...


Freedom in the World (according to Freedom House)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/2011_Freedom_House_world_map.svg/800px-2011_Freedom_House_world_map.svg.png

Government types around the world (Blue means presidentialism, red, green & orange mean parliamentarism and yellow means hybrid)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Forms_of_government.svg/800px-Forms_of_government.svg.png

EDIT: Brown seems to denote single party states, perhaps that essentially boils down to a parliamentary dictatorship

:confused: Smoother transitions? The current U.S. presidential election has been going on for more than a year! In Canada, the writ can be dropped a few days after a non-confidence vote, and less than 6 weeks later, we have a new government (hopefully).


You're not referring to Canada, are you? 'Cause Harper is anything but symbolic, and the Governor-General doesn't usually do anything even vaguely resembling leadership. The Prime Minister appoints the Governor-General, who has NO policies to carry out. None. The GG is supposed to be a neutral representative of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth.

Harper is inept, and his ideas are loathsome - I get disgusted all over again every time I get my morning CBC newsfeed. But he cannot be ignored, and he has been amassing quite a lot of power.

So I can't imagine what sort of parliamentary system you're talking about, 'cause it sure isn't Canada's.

An idealized Canada, perhaps. One where instead of having a Chief of State once every few years (and in the usual Christmas/New Year recorded messages), and a representative of the Chief of State who only hold his or her job at the sufferance of the prime minister the rest of the time, we had our own local Chief of State.

And perhaps "leadership" is not the best term, since that might imply taking action on issues. I was more thinking in terms of providing a rallying figure - someone who commands respect from a vast majority of people, while still being at least nominally the national leader (so someone who, in a crisis, can step up, speak up, calm people, etc, without partisan politics getting in their way).

Right now, as I said, in Canada we only get glimpses of that, because our actual respect-commanding chief of state lives across the pond and only rarely visits, and our GGs are by their nature partisan appointments who exist only at the sufferance of other, even more partisan people. Also because we haven't had any real significant national crisis in a long while (the worse we had was the coalition government spat at the end of 2008, and that ended before it really got started).

And for how respect-worthy Elizabeth is: when an English (one strike) Monarch (two strikes) still manages to get a lot of (often grudging, but still respect) respect out of large stretches of the Quebec independence movement, you have a respect-worthy leader.

(Aside: I saw an interesting idea on prime-minister-appointed-chief-of-states recently. It would have been part of the proposed constitution for Quebec in 1995 if the Yes had won the referendum (the entire constitution project was released, some interesting ideas in there that Canada could learn from). It provided that the prime minister would nominate a president, but the nomination would require the approval of both a majority of MPs from his party - and a majority of the other parties' MPs)

I decided to start this discussion because I noticed how parliamentary democracies often outperform presidential ones, despite there are exceptions to the rules as well.

One striking example is that of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia (all parliamentary ex-Soviet republics) vs. Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia (all presidential ex-Soviet republics). All started out somewhat the same at their independence in 1991, yet to date, the former three have more civil liberties, more wealth and less (ethnic) conflicts than the latter three, that all seem to be plagued by war and corruption, even though perhaps in some way, the development of the South Caucasian countries towards presidentialism was inevitable due to the ethnic conflicts and hence a popular call towards "strong leadership".

On the other hand, the USA is still a pretty free country despite its presidential system, which is probably tempered by its federal system and its powerful political parties. Also, note that Turkey has a parliamentary democratic system, but is fairly authoritarian as well.

So are parliamentary democracies truly better democracies?

The Baltic States have always been richer and more cosmopolitan (as in "connected to the world") than the Caucasian states. It has everything to do with history and nothing with parlamentarism.

Both systems can work well and both can fail miserably. For an example of a dysfunctional parliamentary system in a rich country, we can look at Italy. I think if Latin American countries adopted parlamentarism we would end up with the same kind of endless changes of government as Italy. In fact Brazil tried it briefly in 60's, but a popular referendum put an end to the experiment, with the people voting overwhelmingly for presidentialism. In the 90's there was a referendum to adopt a parliamentary system, bringing back the Imperial Family, and it was also crushed.

I'm a huge fan of Parliamentarian-ism, though with a caveat that Proportional Representation be used. Then your chief executive always has the backing of a large amount of the legislature, but PR almost guarantees that they can't an absolute majority (assuming perfect party discipline).

Really I think the best move for Democracy would be to somehow shatter party discipline, but I have yet to think of a way to do that effectively.

Nowadays France's system is almost fully presidential. The Parliament is now always elected only one month after the President is elected. That's because the President's mandate has been reduced to 5 years (instead of 7), which is exactly the same length as the Parliament mandate.


Parliamentarism is very popular in France (and Europe), especially among political parties. I'm personally not fully convinced. The big problem for me about Parliamentary democracies is that it allows political parties to determine the majority in the back of the electors.

For instance, Cameron has been elected in the UK thanks to the Libdems, who betrayed their electors in accepting to join the Tories in a coalition. That's not what Libdem electors wanted.

I believe the electors have a more direct decision power on the executive in a Presidential system. I don't like coalition strategies in Parliamentary systems. In the US system, bipartism avoids that. In France, the fact MPs elections are played in 2 rounds force coalition between parties to be known before the final vote.

The clearer is a system of alliance between parties, the better it is to me. That's the reason why, I actually quite like US bipartism: there are many political movements but they all need to decide between the big 2. As such, we know in which sides will end all candidates, and thus they can't betray their voters.

Really I think the best move for Democracy would be to somehow shatter party discipline, but I have yet to think of a way to do that effectively.

I agree 100%.
My problem with proportional representation is that it inherently reinforces party politics.

Bipartism is one of the most restricting, abominable political systems I know of. A clear choice and no strategy, perhaps, but you basically ensured that politics becomes about voting against someone rather than for someone. (It's still a possibility in multiparty systems, but less so). This turns politics into a highly negative sphere where it's all about destroying the other side and turning them into "the enemy" because that's much easier than making yourself popular. IN a multi-party system it's a lot more dicey, because any negative politics can backfire and help a third party more than your own.

It's unhealthy for a country, and we're seeing more and more the nasty side effects of it down in the United States.

TBoth systems can work well and both can fail miserably. For an example of a dysfunctional parliamentary system in a rich country, we can look at Italy. I think if Latin American countries adopted parlamentarism we would end up with the same kind of endless changes of government as Italy. In fact Brazil tried it briefly in 60's, but a popular referendum put an end to the experiment, with the people voting overwhelmingly for presidentialism. In the 90's there was a referendum to adopt a parliamentary system, bringing back the Imperial Family, and it was also crushed.
An excellent point.

Parliamentarism is very popular in France (and Europe), especially among political parties. I'm personally not fully convinced. The big problem for me about Parliamentary democracies is that it allows political parties to determine the majority in the back of the electors.

For instance, Cameron has been elected in the UK thanks to the Libdems, who betrayed their electors in accepting to join the Tories in a coalition. That's not what Libdem electors wanted.
Isn't that a general problem of representative democracies? If, say, the electors of the American president were chosen by proportional representation, you would get the same problem.

(and frankly, people who vote "strategically" kinda deserve to be betrayed like that. If you want a Labour government, vote Labour. If you vote Libdem, you should support your party in trying to accomplish as much as possible, apparently the Libdems thought this was the case in partnership with the Tories. Voting Libdem if you want Libdem flavoured Labour or because you are dissatisfied with the sitting government is simply dishonest imo).

For an example of a dysfunctional parliamentary system in a rich country, we can look at Italy.

Isn't Italy more or less an exception to the rule considering how Berlusconi effectively managed to wield presidential power using his media empire and his massive amount of connections.

EDIT:

For instance, Cameron has been elected in the UK thanks to the Libdems, who betrayed their electors in accepting to join the Tories in a coalition. That's not what Libdem electors wanted.

That the Libdems even made it that far is actually quite unheard of, since British politics tend to be dominated by either Labour or the Tories, not completely unlike the Democrats vs. the GOP in the USA.

I believe the electors have a more direct decision power on the executive in a Presidential system. I don't like coalition strategies in Parliamentary systems. In the US system, bipartism avoids that. In France, the fact MPs elections are played in 2 rounds force coalition between parties to be known before the final vote.

Now you're mixing up Presidentialism with Two-Party system as if the two were inseperable, while they aren't. The US largely owes it two-party system to its electoral system and the ideological diversity within the two parties as well and thus has nothing to do with the US being a presidential republic. Most European countries have three party systems (usually consisting of a Socialist party, a Liberal party (that usually is a perpetual minority party as well) and a Christian Democratic/Conservative Party) because European political parties are much more ideology driven than in the US which simply has a very vaguely Left to Centre party and a very vague Centre to Right party.

I think the "swift and decisive" change part is still a little exaggerated, because every parliamentary system I can think of is bicameral and so there can easily be a one chamber majority that stands against the other in the "upper house".

New Zealand is a unicameral constitutional monarchy with parliamentary system. Likewise the three Nordic countries.

Israel is a unicameral parliamentary republic.

Just some examples.

This, essentially.

I think the "swift and decisive" change part is still a little exaggerated, because every parliamentary system I can think of is bicameral and so there can easily be a one chamber majority that stands against the other in the "upper house".


Not all, though, including the most famous parliamentary government -- UK.


I don't know if there's a valid argument for the suggestion that parliamentary republics are more successful. I do think that they're less prone to slow slides into dictatorships, though. And it's telling that most former Eastern bloc countries decided to become parliamentary republics and seem to get along well with that system.

Including Serbia?

I can't make any firm conclusions about which is the better system. Parliaments are clearly far more effective. There is no distinction between the legislative and executive departments, and no separation of powers. Once a party has come into power with a clear majority, they can dominate the state essentially indefinitely. What would stop them from turning the state into a one-party state, effectively an oligarchy? That's what's happened in Singapore, for example.

On the opposite extreme, presidentials are less prone to abuse of the public trust, because there is clear separation of powers. But this also makes them relatively ineffective to making public policy, as compromise and accord become essential to achieving any goal. The US is a clear demonstration of that dysfunction. We have two opposing parties who cannot agree on anything for the last 4 years.

Not all, though, including the most famous parliamentary government -- UK.
The House of Lords would like a word with you. It is pretty weak, but it is still there.

There is no distinction between the legislative and executive departments, and no separation of powers. Once a party has come into power with a clear majority, they can dominate the state essentially indefinitely. What would stop them from turning the state into a one-party state, effectively an oligarchy?
A constitution, whether written or not, and often the reserve powers of the Head of State. In pretty much any well established parliamentary system if the government tried to do such a thing the legislation would be shredded by the courts and/or the Head of State would not give it assent and the government would likely fail to be re-elected.

The House of Lords would like a word with you. It is pretty weak, but it is still there.


A constitution, whether written or not, and often the reserve powers of the Head of State. In pretty much any well established parliamentary system if the government tried to do such a thing the legislation would be shredded by the courts and/or the Head of State would not give it assent and the government would likely fail to be re-elected.

It is my opinion that one man cannot represent the will of the people. If one man starts to make all the decisions and bypasses the constitutional republic, then it would be a limited dictatorship at best. The representation still lies in the Congess and House. They should still be making the policies, not the executive branch.

It is true that the US has slipped in that area and I do not see Us gettting any freer if we allow that to continue, nor do I see the total will of the people being carried out. I am not saying that we will loose total freedom, but can one truly say that we have not lost some of our freedoms in the last 100 years? We have already seen in the last 3+ elections that the country is divided. The reason being, that we are polarized around a President and we have lost the representation of the Legislative branch.

Parliamentary system, if done right, outperforms presidential systems in terms of liberty, inclusion of minorities into the political sphere, representation of non-mainstream interests, democratic control over the executive, and the ease with which you can bring about change in the political environment. If done badly, then you're in for political paralysis, spiralling debts, and nearly perpetual chaos in the government.

In my opinion, the presidential system can only work OK if the party system is very stable and very consolidated. This in practice means that in most cases a majority voting system is necessary. The lack of this was part of the reason why presidential systems worked so badly in Latin America. I consider the presidential system outdated - it was created to essentially replace absolute monarchy with something that was similar to it in terms of how power was wielded. I don't like it in principle for this very reason.

Parliamentary Monarchies are the most stable, example one would never hear even the Republican movement running down her Majesty nor do we hear people ranting that she should show her long form birth certificate.

Changes too easy in Parliamentary democracies, wrong, one needs 51% of the vote to form a government in NZ, one change some of us would like to see is compulsory voting like Australia has, along with primaries for MPs coming in off the list in MMP.

Presidents too often seem to be elected monarchs with a regal household that makes our Royalty look shabby in terms of cost etc.

Yes Canada and the UK should have proportional voting, pity poor Labour got back in the last time in the UK with 36% of the vote, now that is hardly democracy.

Parliamentary Monarchies are the most stable, example one would never hear even the Republican movement running down her Majesty nor do we hear people ranting that she should show her long form birth certificate.
That's a shame. Short of a noose, it'd be nice to get some harassment in there.

Parliamentary Monarchies are the most stable, example one would never hear even the Republican movement running down her Majesty nor do we hear people ranting that she should show her long form birth certificate.
That's because it doesn't matter who "her Majesty" is at the moment.

I agree 100%.
My problem with proportional representation is that it inherently reinforces party politics.

Most forms of proportional representation inherently reinforce the power of political parties. Reweighted Range Voting allows proportional representation while also (like regular Range Voting) weakening the power of political parties. Primary elections would tend to be counter-productive in this system. It does not require any parties, but provides a nursery effect for upstart parties and favors candidates who are consensus builders over those who are polarizing. (Since voters do not simply choose a favorite candidate but rate everyone running, it is at least as important not to be hated as to be loved. Pandering to one's base by demonizing the opposition would not be a wise strategy.)

There is also no reason why RRV could not be used within legislatures to decide Committee Members, Chairmen, Ministers, etc. There is no real need for one party or coalition to achieve dominance in order to form a government.

Parliamentary Monarchies are the most stable, example one would never hear even the Republican movement running down her Majesty nor do we hear people ranting that she should show her long form birth certificate.
You don't hear that in Ireland, either, so I think it might owes more to the fact that the office is almost entirely ceremonial, rather than the fact it's occupied by some old toff.

Isn't Italy more or less an exception to the rule considering how Berlusconi effectively managed to wield presidential power using his media empire and his massive amount of connections.

But Italy has been dysfunctional far before Berlusconi. That was my point; parlamentarism does not work very well there.

But Italy has been dysfunctional far before Berlusconi. That was my point; parlamentarism does not work very well there.

To be fair, nothing works very well in Italy :mischief:

Parliamentary system, if done right, outperforms presidential systems in terms of liberty, inclusion of minorities into the political sphere, representation of non-mainstream interests.I don't believe democracy is about representing a scattered collection of lobbies and communities. It is supposed to represent the consensus of the Nation, as a whole.

In a parliamentary system, we consider that it's the parliament which should determine the majority leading to that consensus. In a presidential system, it's directly the voters who decide in electing the candidate for the presidency proposing the best compromise to their eyes.

As such, I would say that the Presidential system gives more power to the voters, whereas the Parliamentary system gives more power to an intermediary, the parties. If you accuse the President to emulate the monarch, than I can easily accuse the parties to emulate the aristocracy.

Parliamentary Monarchies are the most stable, example one would never hear even the Republican movement running down her Majesty nor do we hear people ranting that she should show her long form birth certificate.Parliamentary Monarchies failed in Germany, Italy, France, Greece, Portugal... If it failed there, then it's not as stable in nature as you assume.

Currently in Belgium, parliamentary monarchy doesn't prevent instability. At the opposite, the Belgian monarch is used as an example by the Flemish majority to denounce the historical unfair advantage given to the French speaking minority (the king being from a French speaking family).

In Spain, I wouldn't really consider Parliamentary monarchy to be a total success. The unity of the country is strongly disputed by regional minorities. Franco is largely responsible of this though, but as a matter of fact he's the one who has overthrown the Republic and re-established monarchy. And if you look a bit at History, the same minorities asking now for more autonomy strongly supported the Republic during the war of Spain.

Even in the UK, the icon of Parliamentary monarchies, we have now Scotland (representing a third of the country's territory), which asks for a referendum on its independence.

I believe citizenship in a Republic is more inclusive than in a Monarchy. There are strong regional tensions in Italy, and there are some in Germany and France too, but no one disputes the fact that people from all regions are Italian in Italy, German in Germany, or French in France. As such, the unity of these countries is largely less threatened than in Monarchies.

Even in the UK, the icon of Parliamentary monarchies, we have now Scotland (representing a third of the country's territory), which asks for a referendum on its independence.

Scotland doesn't ask for anything. The leader of the SNP is doing that.

I don't believe democracy is about representing a scattered collection of lobbies and communities. It is supposed to represent the consensus of the Nation, as a whole.

In a parliamentary system, we consider that it's the parliament which should determine the majority leading to that consensus. In a presidential system, it's directly the voters who decide in electing the candidate for the presidency proposing the best compromise to their eyes.

As such, I would say that the Presidential system gives more power to the voters, whereas the Parliamentary system gives more power to an intermediary, the parties. If you accuse the President to emulate the monarch, than I can easily accuse the parties to emulate the aristocracy.
Yeah, if you want to go down that road you can easily criticize every democracy as monarchy with swapped elites. That says nothing about the differences between presidential or parliamentary implementations of democracy.

I don't really see your point about presidential systems being more inclusive. I think it's the exact opposite. First of all, the "direct election" is a mere technicality, and not even true for other presidential systems, like the American (although there's a case to be made that the French system is even more presidential than the American, despite the "semi"-prefix). Just because I've directly elected someone, he doesn't have to represent me better.

But even more problematic is the fact that the decision always boil down to a decision between two candidates. That's blatantly obvious in America, but in France the first round is nothing but a nice show to everyone who doesn't like the leading candidates, too. In the second round, those that don't prefer both alternatives either have to pick their poison or abstain. In either case, their preferred political decision is not represented at all. I can't see how that's more inclusive.

It forces people who don't agree with the mainstream political camp either to accept the camp mentality or to stop participating with the system. That might be good for France considering the huge crazy fringe you've created on both edges, but it sure ain't very inclusive.

The fact that independence movements exists doesn't mean the government is unstable or a failure. And they are quite common under all kinds of governments and have much more to do with history than the form of government.

I don't believe democracy is about representing a scattered collection of lobbies and communities. It is supposed to represent the consensus of the Nation, as a whole.

That sounds pretty fascist, Marla.

I am not saying minority interests should trump the majority consensus (I am so not saying that), but minority interests have to have a political outlet, ideally through political representation. If you deny them this, they will be much more of a problem.

In a parliamentary system, we consider that it's the parliament which should determine the majority leading to that consensus. In a presidential system, it's directly the voters who decide in electing the candidate for the presidency proposing the best compromise to their eyes.

And I don't like that. One guy can never represent the people well - it sounds all too much as an elective monarchy. Parliamentary systems produce governments which are indeed based on existing political majority. Presidential systems often lead to a situation where the president is no longer representative of people's preferences - see the US, where presidents often have to deal with a congress that's dominated by the opposition party.

As such, I would say that the Presidential system gives more power to the voters, whereas the Parliamentary system gives more power to an intermediary, the parties. If you accuse the President to emulate the monarch, than I can easily accuse the parties to emulate the aristocracy.

That is a valid objection and indeed this sometimes happens. Which is why the voting system has to be optimised to prevent parties from getting too entrenched and "aristocratic".

Parliamentary Monarchies are the most stable, example one would never hear even the Republican movement running down her Majesty nor do we hear people ranting that she should show her long form birth certificate.
That's because we already know she's a Dutch imposter, aiming to bring godlessness and tyranny to Britain.

Agreed with Winner. If minorities don't get to have a political voice that matters to at least some extent in the nation, then the most likely outcome is civil unrest, often of the violent kind. "No taxation without representation" and all that jazz.

As for independence movement, independence movements are meaningless in regard to the stability of parliamentary democracy. All sort of political system, from the worst tyranny to parliamentary systems (Quebec, Scotland), to Presidential ones have their regions that feel culturally isolated from the rest of the country, mistreated, and who yearn to recover their independence.

However, when a minority is able, through pressure groups and the like, to dictate policy to the majority against their wishes, that's not democracy, either.

The House of Lords would like a word with you. It is pretty weak, but it is still there.

The House of Lords doesn't even have effective veto power, much less legislative power. It used to have judicial power which of late it has also lost. It represents one of the few vestiges of monarchy in the UK. I would argue that even the Queen is a vestige, as she doesn't have any effective power, only the semblance of power. These seem to be merely national political decoration.


A constitution, whether written or not, and often the reserve powers of the Head of State.

If that were true, then the UK can easily become an oligarchy, as it has no constitution. (And yet the UK has not been overthrown in 400 years.)


In pretty much any well established parliamentary system if the government tried to do such a thing the legislation would be shredded by the courts and/or the Head of State would not give it assent and the government would likely fail to be re-elected.

That is a rather naive belief. There are plenty of governments that have been overthrown from within, this way. (I can think of a certain Austrian elected to German office that was involved in the last century, in such a debacle.) No, a constitution simply provides the framework for government. It doesn't guarantee that everyone will always abide by those rules, especially when power and wealth are at stake. At all times, even in the most stable democracies, everyone is out to advance their own interests, by legal or other means. The only thing that stops them are other blocs within the state that keep them in check. I would even argue that even in democracies, the people's interests only matter in so far as they are useful to the major political blocs involved in power struggles. In the US, for example, there are only two important political parties, and they only allow the people their due because they would never yield to each other, and so prefer to take their chances with votes. In Russia, on the other hand, although it is a semi-presidential system, there is, effectively an oligarchy because only one party, United Russia, has effective monopoly on power. They are free to engage in illegality, such as recent vote rigging (claimed by at least one international observer organization), knowing that no one can stop them, and constitution be damned.

Technically, neither Great Britain nor the United Kingdom have ever suffered extreme political turmoil of that nature. The Stuart monarchy was restored in 1660 and the thrones of England and Scotland were conflated 47 years later.

If that were true, then the UK can easily become an oligarchy, as it has no constitution. (And yet the UK has not been overthrown in 400 years.)
Yes it does. Not as one document, but through various documents, statutes, legal precedents, treaties and traditional sources some of which are unwritten. In addition the Monarch still holds reserve powers that can be used if such a circumstance were to arise.

As for the rest, note that I said "Well established." The Weimar Germany (which was a Presidential system, not Parliamentary) was a recent, unstable govenrment in an unstable country hit by economic disaster. I was referring to countries like Canada and the UK where Parliamentary governmens have been established. Barring some extreme circumstances no PM would get away with such actions.

I would also argue that a Presidential system inherently puts more power into a single individual which can be leveraged into securing more power. And if the legislature and President are of the same party, you have the same situation as in you Parliamentary example.

Technically, neither Great Britain nor the United Kingdom have ever suffered extreme political turmoil of that nature.
Well, if we discount the Irish War of Independence, which I wouldn't really recommend doing. I know that we tend to shove it away into the Irish history ghetto, but the effective collapse of the state in a fifth of the country is no small thing at all. It quite neatly disproves, at any rate, the illusions that some of our more airy-headed countrymen hold about the intrinsic wonderfulness of the British constitution.

(They, of course, will blame on Papist scheming, but that's just another reason to ignore them altogether.)

The only advantage to a parliamentary system is that change is swift and decisive, but so is the possibility for destructive action. Once a party has attained a majority, they effectively control the state and can steamroll all of their policies into action, both good and bad, with nothing to stop the bad except the next election. A presidential system allows for greater checks and balances, but which often results in gridlock but mitigates against excesses. Getting anything done requires compromise, which results in slow and often half-hearted results.

So in the end, you pick your poison. Either you want slow, lumbering action of a presidential system, but with less chance of destruction, or you want the quick and decisive action of a parliamentary system, taking your chances with all its good and bad.

You say this like both 'poisons' were equally bad. Empirically, they're not. As it happens, parliamentary democracies have an average lifespan of 75 years whilst presidential democracies have an average lifespan of 25 years. In non-OECD democratizing countries between the years of 1973 and 1989 (I use these years no to cherry pick, but because this is when particular studies have been done) parliamentary regimes experiences a 61% survival rate and presidential regimes just a 20% survival rate. An analysis in 2000 of 135 countries (by Adam Pzerworski) found that presidentialism has a -0.58 correlation with democratic collapse in the succeeding year. Of all presidential systems, multi-party ones are the worst; they have a 7% democratic survival rate (survival after 25 years). In short, for a new democracy presidentialism seems to be cyanide and parliamenarialism the medicine.

This happens, almost certainly, because of the excess potential for gridlock you identify to presidential systems. Simply, the greater number of veto players means it is far harder to pass policy. The result is an escalation of national problems and the consequent intervention of other players, often the military. This hypothesis is born out by the data; presidential systems collapse due to military coups about twice as often as do parliamentary system (40% of collapse are due to coups as oppose to 18%).

Maybe you will hold that you don't care about democratizing nations; you care about the policy effect in consolidated democracies. Studies here are much harder to do, but the anecdotal evidence is hardly good (vis a vis, the USA's evidently broken political system and the dysfunctional nature of most presidential democracies - try thinking of just one that works smoothly). Needless to say, if you are actually worried about the 'chance of destruction' parliamentary democracies are evidently superior. Given that questions like this -what form of government is best- are only really relevant to democratising nations it seems blinkered to ignore the issue of democratic survival in such nations.

Well, if we discount the Irish War of Independence, which I wouldn't really recommend doing. I know that we tend to shove it away into the Irish history ghetto, but the effective collapse of the state in a fifth of the country is no small thing at all. It quite neatly disproves, at any rate, the illusions that some of our more airy-headed countrymen hold about the intrinsic wonderfulness of the British constitution.

(They, of course, will blame on Papist scheming, but that's just another reason to ignore them altogether.)
And, of course, the intrinsic properties of the British constitution nearly caused an even larger civil war over that very issue that was only forestalled by the First World War blah blah blah standard Dachs talking points are getting old

Well, if we discount the Irish War of Independence, which I wouldn't really recommend doing. I know that we tend to shove it away into the Irish history ghetto, but the effective collapse of the state in a fifth of the country is no small thing at all. It quite neatly disproves, at any rate, the illusions that some of our more airy-headed countrymen hold about the intrinsic wonderfulness of the British constitution.

True. Ireland's been a separate country for so long now, I don't tend to think of it as formerly British.

We willl have it back in a few centuries time anyway Arak :D

The way things are going, you'll be lucky to have Yorkshire come 2100.

We willl have it back in a few centuries time anyway Arak :D
You'll be in the same state. But that state probably won't be the UK :p

You say this like both 'poisons' were equally bad. Empirically, they're not. As it happens, parliamentary democracies have an average lifespan of 75 years whilst presidential democracies have an average lifespan of 25 years. In non-OECD democratizing countries between the years of 1973 and 1989 (I use these years no to cherry pick, but because this is when particular studies have been done) parliamentary regimes experiences a 61% survival rate and presidential regimes just a 20% survival rate. An analysis in 2000 of 135 countries (by Adam Pzerworski) found that presidentialism has a -0.58 correlation with democratic collapse in the succeeding year. Of all presidential systems, multi-party ones are the worst; they have a 7% democratic survival rate (survival after 25 years). In short, for a new democracy presidentialism seems to be cyanide and parliamenarialism the medicine.

If the only difference between them is 50 years, one would have to conclude that they are both bad and neither worth enacting. It is more reasonable to believe that failure is the result of forces unrelated to the nature of government.

I'm well aware of the dysfunction of the presidential system, as I am suffering in it right now in the US. But that is not necessarily an indictment of presidentialism. After all, the US has survived for over 200 years with only 1 failed threat against it.

Considering many if not most countries only established strong democratic institutions since WWII (notably Africa, Asia, with Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union for just over 20 years), an average life span of 75 years isn't that bad and the 50 year difference is rather large. Many that failed prior to this did not last very long and never established democratic traditions and/or were destroyed by outside forces (inter-war Czechoslovakia)

I'm well aware of the dysfunction of the presidential system, as I am suffering in it right now in the US. But that is not necessarily an indictment of presidentialism. After all, the US has survived for over 200 years with only 1 failed threat against it.

You forget to note the USA also has a federal structure and two-party system which more or less checks the power of the Presidency in ways unthinkable in most failed Third-World states, as these are usually unitary in nature and have a multi-party system the president can play out by divide and conquest.

That said, I don't think the USA would be worse off if had a parliamentary system, au contraire, it would for example be much less adventurous on foreign policy if the house had the power to recall the president by a simple majority no-confidence vote.

That said, I don't think the USA would be worse off if had a parliamentary system, au contraire, it would for example be much less adventurous on foreign policy if the house had the power to recall the president by a simple majority no-confidence vote.

Unfortunately, that also leaves the country vulnerable to dizzy spells of zeal among the electorate (or, more worryingly, a fanatical but minority element of said electorate, which happens to vote in an election where most people are apathetic) and voting in a bunch of lunatics - the Senate is designed to provide such a check, but isn't immune to the same problems.

The way things are going, you'll be lucky to have Yorkshire come 2100.

Traitorfish believes in Eurabia now? :eek:

Traitorfish believes in Eurabia now? :eek:

You mean al-'Bion.

You'll be in the same state. But that state probably won't be the UK :p

Pfft, we will leave the EU superstate in a few decades. Then inevitably we will fight the next continental war against said EU superstate (by then it will be fascist, ostensibly:P).

You mean al-'Bion.

Yorkshirestan?

Nope, doesn't have the same beautiful ring as "londonistan" has :P

Traitorfish believes in Eurabia now? :eek:
Better Eurabia than Greater England. :p

Unfortunately, that also leaves the country vulnerable to dizzy spells of zeal among the electorate (or, more worryingly, a fanatical but minority element of said electorate, which happens to vote in an election where most people are apathetic) and voting in a bunch of lunatics - the Senate is designed to provide such a check, but isn't immune to the same problems.


And that's different from a parliamentary system how? ;) While this is possible in a presidential system like the US, I would argue that our history shows that it is rare for it to do so to the extent that it has now. Where in a parliamentary system it could happen at any time one party has a clear majority. So while neither side is perfect, a system like the US doesn't go to extremists quite so easily, and doesn't make major governmental changes easy at all.

No system is so perfect that it can't be screwed up if the wrong people are running it. There is no idiot-proofing through design. The best outcomes seem to be where there is the greatest possible public participation. But no system will ever be perfect.

I'm saying that a Parliamentary system has that weakness - in the UK, we have unelected but very-slightly accountable offices (the HoL and the Monarchy, which could be dissolved were they to consistently impede democracy), to prevent it. Replacing the President with a Prime Minister would in my view leave him very vulnerable to the idiocy of the masses.

In fact, I think that's what you just said - can I blame my accent for the terrible communication?

I'm saying that a Parliamentary system has that weakness - in the UK, we have unelected but very-slightly accountable offices (the HoL and the Monarchy, which could be dissolved were they to consistently impede democracy), to prevent it. Replacing the President with a Prime Minister would in my view leave him very vulnerable to the idiocy of the masses.

In fact, I think that's what you just said - can I blame my accent for the terrible communication?

Given the quote you were replying to, I may have mistaken your point...

I'm saying that a Parliamentary system has that weakness - in the UK, we have unelected but very-slightly accountable offices (the HoL and the Monarchy, which could be dissolved were they to consistently impede democracy), to prevent it. Replacing the President with a Prime Minister would in my view leave him very vulnerable to the idiocy of the masses.
Ireland seems to manage without electing anybody ridiculous. Their current president isn't even from a (traditionally) major party. :dunno:

Better Eurabia than Greater England. :p

C'mon answer my original question! Your an EDL man now? :D

It would be Great Britain, not greater England - we value our subject provinces:D

Ireland seems to manage without electing anybody ridiculous. Their current president isn't even from a (traditionally) major party. :dunno:

The odds of it happening are miniscule, but the fallout from it is immense - hence, that argument isn't great, given that Ireland's had less than a century of democracy.

What sort of fallout do you imagine? Far as I know, the Irish presidency is all but powerless, even moreso than the commonwealth Governor-Generals.

C'mon answer my original question! Your an EDL man now? :D
Did I suggest that the collapse of your little völkstaat was in any sense a bad thing? :p

It would be Great Britain, not greater England - we value our subject provinces:D
Turning over a new leaf, eh? :mischief:

What sort of fallout do you imagine? Far as I know, the Irish presidency is all but powerless, even moreso than the commonwealth Governor-Generals.

Which rather negates the point, since we were talking about America making its president accountable to Congress.

Whoops, so it is, I'm getting myself completely mixed up there. My bad! :crazyeye:

Better Eurabia than Greater England. :p
Allow me to suggest a compromise:
http://cdn.dipity.com/uploads/events/865b42ba859ca60363292b8118b822ec_1M.png
What? The discussion started with persecuting the Irish after all.

Given that Ollie folded both Ireland and Scotland into a "Commonwealth of England", that's not so much a compromise as a total concession. :p

Ireland seems to manage without electing anybody ridiculous. Their current president isn't even from a (traditionally) major party. :dunno:
That depends on the belief that Ireland is currently "managing", doesn't it?

That depends on the belief that Ireland is currently "managing", doesn't it?
Well, so far as the presidency goes, I don't see why that's not reasonable. They managed not to elect Martin McGuinness, at any rate, so they could be doing worse.

That said, I don't think the USA would be worse off if had a parliamentary system, au contraire, it would for example be much less adventurous on foreign policy if the house had the power to recall the president by a simple majority no-confidence vote.

Unfortunately, that would not happen, in recent events, as the entire Congress with rare exception sided with the President on those adventures, "before it was against them."

If the only difference between them is 50 years, one would have to conclude that they are both bad and neither worth enacting. It is more reasonable to believe that failure is the result of forces unrelated to the nature of government.

I'm well aware of the dysfunction of the presidential system, as I am suffering in it right now in the US. But that is not necessarily an indictment of presidentialism. After all, the US has survived for over 200 years with only 1 failed threat against it.

Really?

Young people -children, teenagers, young adults- often develop cancer. Suppose we have two drugs with which we can treat cancer. People treated by one drug have an average life expectancy of 25 years. People treated by the other drug have an average life expectancy of 75 years. Should we conclude that, because the difference is 'only' fifty years 'both [are] bad and neither worth enacting'? Is it reasonable to believe that the difference in life expectancy is due to forces unrelated to the course of treatment?

I think not.

Given that Ollie folded both Ireland and Scotland into a "Commonwealth of England", that's not so much a compromise as a total concession. :p
But it's all in the name: there's wealth, and it will be common. Now don't get hung up about minor details like the "of England" bit :p

Of ocurse the wealth will be Common to the English because they will own the Irsish and Scots (the Welsh being the Welsh will not add any wealth to the English).

Really?

Young people -children, teenagers, young adults- often develop cancer. Suppose we have two drugs with which we can treat cancer. People treated by one drug have an average life expectancy of 25 years. People treated by the other drug have an average life expectancy of 75 years. Should we conclude that, because the difference is 'only' fifty years 'both [are] bad and neither worth enacting'? Is it reasonable to believe that the difference in life expectancy is due to forces unrelated to the course of treatment?

I think not.

So we should be pleased when a government only survives the length of a human lifetime?

False equivalence is false.

Except most of the countries in the world today haven't been independent for the length of a human lifetime. Add to that modern democracy only being about 250 years old, at the most. A 50 year period is quite significant.