Briefly describe the differences between presidential and parliamentary systems of government.  Which system, in your opinion, is more efficient?   Briefly describe the differences between presidential and parliamentary systems of government.  Which system, in your opinion, is more efficient?  

Expert Answers

An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles
Parlaimentary governments also allow for monarchy figureheads. You can't usually have a president and a king. The parliamentary system does allow for a monarchy at the same time. That's the only thing I can think to add to the detailed descriptions above.
Approved by eNotes Editorial Team
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

Most things done by committee are not efficient, nor do they often render the best decisions because too many people have to be kept happy. In a system where a president rules, unlike our system, one person, with advice, can be more efficient and rule more wisel

A parliamentary system is done by committee, therefore I would say a presidential form would be more efficient and more just.

Approved by eNotes Editorial Team
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

A Parliamentary system has a Prime Minister, his or her party, and loyal opposition. The Executive and Legislative functions are a bit merged.  A Branch system, on the other hand, further segregates governmental powers and has an Executive Office, Legislature, and Judiciary.

"Efficiency" and "government" are akin to water and oil. They have nothing to do with each other.  What is the benefit of government being efficient?  Ramming through social agendas to the dismay of the ousted opposition?  Finding quicker ways to enact burdensome laws?  Crafting a method to bailout immediately failed industries with taxpayer money?

The function of government is not to be efficient; the function of government is to safeguard rights.

Similarly, Presidents and Prime Ministers are oil and water.  Prime ministers may lead the party in power and promote agendas; Presidents, by Constitutional standards, have no such authority since that is the function of the legislature. A president is not supposed to lead a political party, but merely be a member of one.

Regarding political parties, we were never supposed to be limited to two.  That has evolved simply because Congress has enacted bylaws to keep 3rd parties restricted.  However, without new parties with new people with new ideas, elitist representation evolves; no wonder people are tired of demipulicans and republicrats.  Real change has no chance.  It's even worse than that. Not only has Congress restricted the number of parties, it has restricted the number of seats in representation.  By so doing, congressional districts become odd amalgams of discontiguous voting blocs and true representation, along with true debate, is further diminished.

Having removed those restrictions, Congress would be much more viable, debate would be fruitful, representation would be accurate, and the legislative branch would start doing its job.  The Executive Office (President) would return to figurehead status, and as far as legislation's concerned, would only enact or veto acts of Congress, like that office was supposed to.

A Branch system, when operating as designed, would be more effective than a Parliamentary system, if only because Executive and Legislative power is not concentrated in one organ of government.  Separating powers and maintaining the system of checks and balances is the best way to safeguard individual rights, which is the function of government.

 

Approved by eNotes Editorial Team
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

What I like about the parliamentary system is the fact that people can know who to blame when things go wrong.  Here in the US, the Democrats get voted into office but they can't do what they want because the Republicans can stop them through the filibuster.  So if things don't get done, whose fault is it?  The Dems for not compromising?  The GOP for not compromising?

In England, if things go bad, you know that Labour is the only party to blame.  The Tories have no real power, so it's clear who is in charge.  It would be nice to have that kind of clarity.

Approved by eNotes Editorial Team
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

The description of the system already given is fine; I would only comment on efficiency. The Parliamentary system seems more tolerant of 3rd parties.  Sometimes, when no party has more than half the seats, coalitions must be created to give the Prime Minister the authority that he needs.  But sometimes, when there are many different "parties" involved in the coalition, it is almost impossible to get anything done.  Our system may have the same problem when the executive and all/part of the legistlative branches are from different parties.  Since the parties seem to believe that they can latch on to power "forever," they do not always act in the interest of the people, especially when the minority party's only interest seems getting power "back" again.  Our recent experience with the Health Care proposals indicate how our system can be ground to a halt.

I think this all may be good.  The old "Act in haste, repent at leisure" may have a great deal of truth in it.  I'm not sure how you are using the word "efficient," but I think the important thing for a government is to do the correct thing for the people, even if it seem "inefficient" in doing so. Both forms of government have been around for a long time, and both seem to get the job done, so they may be equally efficient just "different."

 

Approved by eNotes Editorial Team
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

In a Presidential system, there is a strong executive branch that is directly elected by the people.  We have a presidential system in the US.  A parliamentary system has a congressional election, whereby the citizens vote for the political party, not the individual.  When a party receives, say 30% of the vote, that party receives 30% of the congressional seats.

Any party that receives more than 50% of the vote, or can join with another party to get 50%, they get to appoint a Prime Minister to act as the executive.

I believe our system is more efficient because the President has a definite term of four years, and doesn't have to worry about more frequent elections or a coalition of parties that can dissolve at any time.  In a parliamentary system, the Prime Minister can call for early elections at any time as well, for example, if he/she thinks they are popular enough to win, their party can get them a new full term.  Our elections are every four years according to the Constitution, period.

I do like that in a parliamentary system, the Prime Minister has to address Parliament regularly and answer direct questions from the opposition without a script.  It's much more genuine and entertaining debate that way, but not necessarily more efficient.

Approved by eNotes Editorial Team