In a parliamentary system, such as in UK, the government consists of three institutions — the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. There is a ‘fusion’ of power in the parliamentary form, compared with ‘separation’ of powers with checks and balances in the presidential system. The Congress in the US is not a parliament but an assembly because it does not choose the executive i.e., the president. In a parliamentary system, the prime minister is elected by parliament and his/her cabinet colleagues must be members of that parliament. A written and secular constitution is ‘supreme’ in a presidential system, whereas the parliamentary system is based on ‘parliamentary supremacy’ and no court in the country can challenge its authority. Parliament is the source of all powers in the community and the regions/provinces have no reserved powers.
Institutional stability is the hallmark of the presidential system. In the US, the tenures for both the president and Congressmen are fixed and judges are appointed for a lifetime. There is no single power in the community that is not ‘shared’ with each other i.e., among the legislature, the judiciary and the executive. It is like the $100 note — if you tear it into three pieces, it has no value until you join it into one. Neither an ordinary law nor an amendment in the Constitution can be passed through a simple majority. This divided form of government is common in the US, especially when the president’s party is in the minority in the Congress. To pass a law or money bill/budget, both parties have to make a ‘deal’ or agreement through earmarks and pork barrel spending i.e., financial incentives to Congressmen. Otherwise, deadlocks or gridlocks become common.
The whole decision-making process in the presidential system is based on consent and compromise. If I am not exaggerating, no law can be passed unless some members ‘defect’ or change their loyalties, particularly in the Senate. But this defection is designed and desired by the system in order to avoid ‘majority oppression’ as can happen in a parliamentary democracy. The party system is weak and disorganised compared with the parliamentary form where parties and their leaders are very powerful. In the presidential form, party leaders are merely titular or decorative. There is also explicit distribution of powers between the federal government and the regional governments. The Supreme Court has the ultimate power to interpret both law and the constitution.
Moreover, the electoral process in both the systems is completely different. The presidential system is based on a two-tier election process i.e., primary elections and general elections. People elect both the candidates/nominees and representatives for all types of executives and legislatures in the country. People also elect the president and members of the Congress separately and directly for their fixed terms in office. No one can dissolve the Congress. The election of the president is lengthy, complicated and expensive as election campaigns start about a year before the elections. The same is true for the Senate races. In the UK, on the other hand, the whole parliamentary election exercise is completed in only three weeks.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 5th, 2013.
COMMENTS (7)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
The fundamental point here is that parliamentary democracy was introduced as anti-thesis to feudalism; but in case of Pakistan the democracy has become hostage of feudals or feudal mindset. Therefore, improvement in the system is hard to come-by. We seriously need to review how our country is governed. Larger number of countries in the world have Presidential or hybrid system like France. Such a model would only be opposed by the parliamentarians as it cuts into their interests...
I couldn’t find any argument in the article. The whole article is based on a baseless assumption, that is, “…most of them have little understanding of the complex presidential system”. The article seems merely a collection of definitions and descriptions which anybody can find through googling. By the way, comments from readers are more helpful and realistic.
@Roni: Excellent points.
People think Presidential system gives carte blanche to the President to do what he/she wants and seem to favour it because they think that it would give more leeway to take tough decisions unhindered by the need for discussion and negotiation that are the hallmarks of legislative politics. Clearly that is not true or else the whole fiscal cliff issue would have been a non-issue. The President also would have already successfully passed gun control laws.
The fact is that in any mature democracy whether Presidential or PArliamentary there are checks and balances between 3 key institutions i.e. legislature, executive and judiciary. US and France have PResidential system, UK, Canada, Australia, India have parliamentary system. Whatever the system, one person cannot and should not have unchecked power. While it might seem that this slows down decision making, it also limits the extent to which authority can be abused.
@Roni: US is far bigger country then Pakistan if a president can control such a big state or even elected why can't a president elected from comparatively a small state like Pakistan handle the pressure ? there president is black for the record, if the rule is followed time will come when there will be a president elected from Baluchistan, Sindh or even from KPH ! I can go on but i hope i have made my point !
A few points to make here: Even though the US has presidential form but all the money and budget is controlled and approved by both the houses. Each of the cabinet member and imp posts like generals, SC judges need approval of Senate. President can be impeached and does not have the dictatorial powers that past Pakistani presidents had assumed like Mush, GIK, Ayub. The US president is not elected on the basis of one man one vote but each state has powers to adopt their own electoral system. Al Gore won more votes yet lost the elections to Bush. In Pakistani presidential elections only a candidate from Punjab or larger province be elected by the popular votes. Nobody from Baluchistan would have a chance at all. This would disintegrate the union even further. Presidential form of govt is not a tried and tested system and is in just one country. I can continue but made my point.
It's like you wanted to say they were wrong to want it due to calling for something that would be worse and then listed all the reasons of why they were right to want it.
Surely, the parliamentary system is supreme as it is one the oldest and the purest forms of democracy that we see today. However, the system has proved to be a failure in the case of Pakistan. As the Pakistan is heading towards the first democratic completion of its term, we hope to see no change that it will bring to the down-trodden of this country.
Soon the elections will held, parties will have to make alliances and as PML-N, PML-Q and PTI seem to gather most of the votes, the result will be a chaos, again the "Political horse-trading" will start.
Parliamentary system looks great on the paper however, we see lack of implementation of the constitution. Parliamentarians hold fake degrees, do not pay taxes etc. Not to forget the military establishment which has just "played" with the constitution of Pakistan.
The problem with multi-party system is that the minority parties blame the majority and they become pure in the eyes of the electorates as is the example of MQM and PML-Q.
Parliamentary system lacks checks and balances, institutions are weak. These further results in lack of governance, policies made in the favor of the power elites (military-civil, feudallords, landlords)
Even if you want to make the parliamentary system stronger that will require constitutional amendments and its implementation which requires the "Political Will".
It is unlikely that the parliamentarians will make the institutions stronger as that will encroach on their own interests.