Democracy is a way of governing where majority of the power is vested in the people and is exercised by taking part in elections (Mintz, David, & Osvaldo, 2014). Every countries democracy is founded upon certain principles and conventions based on the type of governance system they are using (Rieksts., 2009). The two main democratic ways of governance, which majority of the world, in today’s society, uses are the parliamentary and presidential systems (Mintz et al., 2014). These systems have considerably increased in popularity over the course of time due to them allowing the citizens of the countries to choose who they want to be in charge of running their country. Power is a big part of politics and the systems accompanying it. As a textbook definition, power is the ability to achieve an objective by influencing other individuals’ behavior and or actions (Mintz et al., 2014). It can be achieved through coercion, inducement, and persuasion (Mintz et al., 2014). In a political standpoint, the power is in the people’s hands and they decide based on their beliefs and opinions, who they want to give the authority to lead their country, which is a similar concept between the two systems of governance. The modern concept of the parliamentary system developed out of Great Britain in the 1700s and the presidential system developed from the Americas (Tan, 2017). Countries such as Canada, Denmark, and United Kingdom use the parliamentary system while countries such as The United States of America, South Korea, and Costa Rica use the presidential system (Tan, 2017). Both systems of governance have proven their success throughout the years and come with their fair share of strengths and weaknesses. Although, at first, both seem quite identical and the difference may not be conspicuous, there are many key factors that distinguish the two systems of government from one another. The roles of the leaders, accountability of the executive, separation of power, and the length of terms served in office play a major role in separating these two systems (Mintz et al., 2014). The parliamentary system of government is superior, however, on balance in comparison to the presidential system of governance because the role of the prime minister is much more important than that of the president as more power is vested in the prime minister, the fusion of the different branches of government helps efficiently pass legislative and ensures the executive and legislative branches agendas are working together instead of against each other, and the structure of the system in a parliamentary system allows the system to run fairly whilst being effective and efficient.
Both the parliamentary and presidential systems of government have leaders that are in charge of running the country. In a parliamentary system that leader is called a prime minister whereas in a presidential system, the leader is called the president. The role of the leaders is a crucial difference in the two systems. The prime minister is responsible for making his/her cabinet which ensures the party’s and the nations values are kept (Rieksts., 2009). For example, in Canada Justin Trudeau chose to have a cabinet that “looked like Canada” so his cabinet consisted of half female and half male for the first time in the country’s history (Gatehouse., 2017). There are members of his cabinet that are from different generations with different backgrounds and ethnicities (Gatehouse., 2017). Thousands of people came out in the streets of Canada to watch the swearing in ceremony of the cabinet members on big television screens, which seemingly has been very uninteresting in the past (Gatehouse., 2017). It shows how important it is to have a good cabinet to represent the country, after all they will be the ones in charge of introducing new legislation and policies. However, there is a downfall with this, as the prime minister is limited to choose among only the individuals that the party he is leading, elects (Mintz et al., 2014). When sworn in the cabinet members are held strictly accountable for their actions and are expected of having cabinet solidarity, where they are all expected to fully agree and support the decisions of the cabinet (Mintz et al., 2014). They are also held to cabinet responsibility where they have to defend and explain every decision they have made, so need be (Mintz et al., 2014).
In comparison to the United States, who follow a presidential system, their cabinet members are nominated by the president and then voted in by a majority vote from the senate (Mintz et al., 2014). This process takes some of the power out of the elected leader’s hands as the senate can vote against a nominee for the cabinet (Mintz et al., 2014). The cabinet isn’t held to the same sort of expectations compared to a parliamentary system and as a whole is not a key decision-making body (Mintz et al., 2014). Presidents in the past have chosen not to regularly hold meetings with their cabinets and they do not have to follow the advice of the cabinet either, whereas in a parliamentary system the cabinet and prime minister work closely together (Mintz et al., 2014). The cabinet is an excellent source to provide advice and guidance to the leader in charge, so with the cabinet not being present in the presidential system, as often, or being one of the main decision-making bodies, is a huge downfall for the presidential system as the cabinet cannot be the second assurance in regard to international or national issues. The president is not held to the same accountability as the executive personal in the parliamentary system so in certain circumstances, a president can make a bad decision and still have his position secured.
In a presidential system the president is both the head of government and head of state (Rieksts., 2009). The head of state is supposed to be an individual who is “above politics” and for the most part not involved in any official decision making (Mintz et al., 2014). In Canada, the head of state is The Queen of England as it is to pay respect to our history with Great Britain (Mintz et al., 2014). Due to the fact that the head of state is not involved in politics, any decision made by the government cannot tarnish that individuals’ image and therefor, in unusual circumstances, if need be, they can unbiasedly make a decision to dismiss a government for acting unconstitutionally (Mintz et al., 2014). This is a very unusual action. In a presidential system, having the president as the head of state and the head of government can be quite dangerous if some misfortunate events were to take place with the government. Since the president is also the leader of the country, he/she is not able to make an unbiased decision in the time of need. The prime minister is a part of the House of Commons which helps keep the executive branch in check as the opposition party can question the actions the prime minister has taken, and he/she has to answer, this process keeps executive personnel on their toes to ensure
nothing unconstitutional occurs (Mintz et al., 2014). In a presidential system, the president does not have to sit in a debate with the opposition party (party with the second most votes).
The fusion of the legislative and executive plays an important role in considerably increasing the betterment of the parliamentary system compared to the presidential system. In Canada’s parliamentary system and the United States presidential system, the three branches of government include the legislative, executive, and judicial (Rieksts., 2009). The legislative branch has the power to enact laws while the executive branch administers and implements policy and law and the judicial interprets and applies the law (Rieksts., 2009). The legislative branch consists of two chambers in Canada, the house of commons and the senate (Rieksts., 2009). In the United States of America, the legislative branch consists of the congress and the senate (Truman., 2017). In the Canadian Constitution Act of 1867, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the legislative and executive should operate “on the basis of a substantial integration and co-ordination” (Rieksts., 2009). This provision allows bills and policies to be passed at a much faster pace compared to the presidential system where there is a separation of power between the different branches of government (Jensen & McGrath, 2011).
In the United States, the executive and legislative branches are separate from each other and generally can go against each other, instead of working together (Lombardo., 2018). The executive branch prepares a lot of legislative proposals, but it is up to the congress to accept, modify, or reject the proposal (Mintz et al., 2014). Due to this lengthy process it is very hard to pass legislation in a presidential system (Jensen et al., 2011). If you look past the difficulty to pass legislation, this sort of separation in the branches places checks and balances to ensure that the executive branch does not do something irrational or unconstitutional (Mintz et al., 2014). The fusion of government branches in the parliamentary system places a lot of power in the hands of the prime minister which in the worst-case scenario could be misused. However, the legislative branch also has a lot of power due to the structure of the parliamentary system and can cast a vote of no confidence and vote out the executive branch if they disagree with the type of actions and decisions they are making (Mintz et al., 2014). Whereas in a presidential system it is extremely difficult to vote out a president because of the way the system is set up (Mintz et al., 2014).
The structures of both the parliamentary and presidential systems are built on somewhat of a different foundation. Both of these systems have the citizens in their countries choose their leader. In a presidential system, it is a direct election of the individual from the people while in a parliamentary system it is a party that is voted in and then the leader of the party generally, not always, is chosen by the governor general to be the leader of the country (Mintz et al., 2014). Voting for a party rather than an individual from a party is a better idea as people vote for the what the party as a whole stand for and believe in and not just the individual that is leading that party. Scholars have found however, that parliamentary systems are slowly being “presidentianalized” in the voting aspect of the system as voters are more concerned about the leader of the party they are voting for rather than the party itself (Bittner, 2018).
The Parliamentary system is a dual executive system where the head of state and head of government are two different individuals whereas in the presidential system, it is a unitary system where both those titles and responsibilities that are accompanied with head of state and head of government are given to one individual, the president (Mintz et al., 2014). The executive and legislative are separated in a presidential system while in a parliamentary system they are fused together to ensure efficiency in passing law (Rieksts., 2009). If a prime minister wanted to dissolve parliament, he/she has the ability to do so whereas a president cannot do anything that would result in the shutting down of the congress due to the separation of powers (Mintz et al., 2014). The legislative personnel could defeat any executive sponsored bills without getting shut down (Mintz et al., 2014).
The legislative body in a parliamentary system also holds enough power to vote out the executive branch, if the government is acting unconstitutionally, with a vote of no confidence (Rieksts., 2009). If this vote was completed the Executive branch would either need to resign or call for a new election (Mintz et al., 2014). In a presidential system, it is extremely difficult for the legislative body to take the executive personnel out of office (Mintz et al., 2014). There is no equivalence to the vote of no confidence which is present in the parliamentary system. In the United States for example, their constitution provides the house of representatives (legislative body) with the sole power of impeachment and the senate with the power to try all impeachments (Mintz et al., 2014). To impeach executive personnel, in the United States of America, The House of Representatives prepare written charges against the individual, whomever, they believe has committed an act or crime that goes against the country’s beliefs or law (Mintz et al., 2014). If a majority vote is gained from the house of representatives then the case is put in front of the senate-who have the final say (Mintz et al., 2014). The senate needs to have two thirds of the votes to impeach the individual (Mintz et al., 2014). To put it into perspective that is 67 out of 100 votes, it is not easy to get. A president can serve only 2 consecutive terms while a prime minister can serve as many terms as the people of his/her country desire (Lombardo., 2018). The fixed terms in a presidential system can be difficult to deal with as there can be a president the people really enjoy, but he/she cannot serve for longer than those 2 terms. Although in the parliamentary system the prime minister and the cabinet are held accountable for their actions it is not written down in codified law and therefore there is a lot of room for abuse of power (Mintz et al., 2014). In comparison to the presidential system where a lot of checks and balances are in place to act as a safeguard against abuse of power (Mintz et al., 2014).
The voting system differs a lot between these systems as well. In the presidential system, candidates merely have to pass the electoral college vote in order to win the election (Hill.,
2002). While the popular vote could have been won by a different candidate (Hill., 2002). This is an example of what occurred in the 2016 United States of America elections. The popular vote is won by receiving the most votes nation-wide (Hill., 2002). In the 2016 case, Hillary Clinton had won the popular vote, but Donald Trump was first past the 270 electoral college vote mark and won the election. Looking at the United States 2016 election, this voting system seems to be a flawed system as the result of the election did not show the overall consensus of the citizens. While in Canada it is based on whichever party can get the most seats in the house of commons, which seems to be a more fair and democratic way of holding an election.
The debate of which system of government is more efficient and effective has been going on for a long time and may never be put to an end. The parliamentary and presidential systems share the same values of having a democracy and vesting power into the hands of the citizens to choose who they want to see as their leader (Rieksts., 2009). Voting systems are completely different in these two systems and the electoral college vote causes a lot of controversy in the presidential system (Hill., 2002). Legislative and executive branches are separated in the presidential governance whereas in a parliamentary system it is not (Rieksts., 2009). This makes passing new policies much more efficient in the parliamentary system (Rieksts., 2009). A lot more stability is present in a parliamentary governance as the executives are held accountable for their actions and can be voted out by the legislative body (Mintz., 2014). It is fair to say that both systems are great in their own ways and have their own different strengths and weaknesses but if needing to choose between the two, the parliamentary system is much more superior. it is a more stable system, holds executive personnel accountable, has fair elections, and is simply much more efficient due to the fusion of the legislative and executive body. In a presidential system, there is a lot more room for error with how difficult it is to remove an executive from their role and how the voting system is based on the idea that the first past the post wins. Instead of removing the electoral college vote, which would be a good idea, they could change the system in a way where the winning candidate from the election must win both the electoral college and the popular vote. Taking into account the flaws accompanying the presidential system, it is safe to say the parliamentary system is overall a better system of governance.