Parliamentarism vs. Presidentialism

[Tahuti]

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?

 

[Dreadnought]

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.

 

[Tahuti]

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.

 

[lovett]

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.

 

[Arwon]

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

In what way?

 

[timtofly]

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.

 

[Evie]

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.

 

[innonimatu]

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.

 

[Arwon]

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.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

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.

 

[rollo1066]

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.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

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

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.

 

[say1988]

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.

 

[warpus]

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.

 

[Leoreth]

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.

 

[say1988]

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.

 

[say1988]

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. 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.

 

[Tahuti]

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

Spoiler :

Freedom in the World (according to Freedom House)


Government types around the world (Blue means presidentialism, red, green & orange mean parliamentarism and yellow means hybrid)


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

 

[Evie]

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)

 

[luiz]

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.