Arab Spring aftermath: Presidential or Parliamentary systems?

[really]

What would be the best system for the Tunisia, Egypt, Libya...

Would a presidential system bring stability but risk installing new strong men?
Would a parliamentary system system be more representative but unstable?
Is there anything to be learned from the collapse of the soviet union?

Personally I am biased towards a parliamentary system - I think it makes it difficult for a strong man to maintain his position - what does CFC OT think?

 

[warpus]

A parlimentary democracy of some sort with a figurehead president, like we have in Poland.

 

[Lillefix]

I'm really not qualified to say either way. Whatever lessens the risk of a new Saddam Hussein, Gadaffi or Ayatollah Khomeini.

 

[GenMarshall]

Eather a semi-presidential or a parliamentary system.

 

[mitsho]

It's simple of course. A system which ties into government the highest percentage of population possible. A Presidential system does the opposite and allows low majority governments. Many opportunities for vetoes would seem to be the right thing to do...

But two points seem to be the most important here: 1) The system needs to come from within the country, there's no sense of WEsterners imposing ideas! 2) the system needs to be believable for the actors themselves. Acceptance by the population is key.

 

[SKILORD]

Parlimentary rules, Presidential sucks. It's easy to use proportional representation with a Parlimentary system, just steer clear of that ineffective antique of a government, Westminster systems. Consensual democracy > Majoritarian Democracy.

 

[Truronian]

A parlimentary democracy of some sort with a figurehead president, like we have in Poland.

Sounds sensible. The country gets a prominent leader behind which it can rally but who lacks any real power.

 

[SKILORD]

I've started to suspect that Germany is the real model of an effective democracy, they should just copy the Basic Law wholesale. Then they could even have a separate head of state to figurehead it up.

 

[warpus]

Sounds sensible. The country gets a prominent leader behind which it can rally but who lacks any real power.

I suggested it because the region is used to a figurehead leading the country. Having both a prime minister and president might work well for that reason. Then again, what do I know!

 

[GamezRule]

Just copy the American Constitution because USA #1!

 

[asbestos]

The only right answer in this thread is `whatever polls of the arab world show`.

 

[Incodcito]

Just copy the American Constitution because USA #1!

This meme needs to die a quick painful death.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Semi-Presidential. Make it so the head of government and head of state both have actual power, so they can check eachother.

Failing that, have a collective executive like Switzerland.

 

[Tee Kay]

Please don't call it the "Arab Spring". All the "Spring" revolutions so far have failed.

IMO a parliamentary system would be better, but I suspect those which are presidential republics will remain so.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Whatever the others do Libya should follow the model of Switzerland, if only because it would be a further insult to Gaddaff to emulate the country he alone seems to despise.


I also would of course strongly recommend using Range Voting (or possibly its PR variant RRV) and granting as little power to political parties as possible without infringing on the rights of association and assembly.


I'd also call for strong checks and balances including the ability for private citizens to use petitions to national ballot initiatives able to repeal laws (but probably not pass new ones as the medium does not allow for any necessary compromises) and recall officials. There should definitely be a peaceful, legal way for unpopular leaders to be forced to step down.

 

[Mise]

I can't think of a recently established parliamentary democracy which subsequently failed, whereas I can think of plenty of recently established presidential democracies which has slid into pseudo-dictatorship.

Doesn't mean there isn't one, just that I can't think of one. EDIT: I actually can't think of any recently established parliamentary democracies, outside of Europe...

EDIT2: Kyrgyzstan??? EDIT3: Burma????

 

[Yoda Power]

Parliamentary democracy is the way to go. Inspiration from the German, Dutch, Scandinavian or similar systems. Proportional representation and probably positive parliamentarism would be my preferences.

The problem with a presidential system like the US or French is that it would be too easy for some new dictator wannabe to seize power. Just look at Central Asia.

 

[amadeus]

Other despotic countries have had parliamentary systems: Zimbabwe was a parliamentary system when the British transferred power to Mugabe in 1980. There's no guarantee that the system is going to prevent a bad crop from wielding absolute power.

 

[Mise]

Other despotic countries have had parliamentary systems: Zimbabwe was a parliamentary system when the British transferred power to Mugabe in 1980. There's no guarantee that the system is going to prevent a bad crop from wielding absolute power.

That's 3 then. I can think of waaaaaaaaay more presidential systems that bred corrupt autocracies. But that may be because there are more presidential systems in the world than parliamentary systems. Someone else can do the analysis.

 

[Kyriakos]

Yes, the arab states will have parliamentary democracy installed. Im sure they will also soon legalise gay weddings too.

What will happen seems to be that they will either have a "soft islam" in government, or they will destabilise even more and go for the full hard-core islam, leading to sunni-shia conflict.

These revolts were not something that came to be out of the blue, nor did it have as a basis the people's need for democracy. If one believes they actually needed democracy that much then why did the revolts happen just now?
There have been arguments that the revolts were part of a plan to install a new balance in the region, so as to isolate Iran, exactly through the conflict of muslim sects.

Just look at Iraq, and the paradigm of democracy that is, in fact there there is fear of revolution, and we are talking about american colony Iraq, where supposedly there would be change for the better.

It seems a lot more likely that these revolts happened for control of oil and gas. Gadafi's regime, for example, did not sell oil for dollars, like the other regimes in the region did. It gave its oil for arms, which is why it has so many french weapons for example. Also it made direct deals not with the Usa but with Italy, France and Germany.

I am not very interested in politics, but the naive stance that such events happen because the people of those countries suddently rebelled, out of a "need for democracy" belongs at best at the essay of a child, and not in serious political discussion.