Which system is more efficient, the Parliamentary system or the Congressional system used in the United States?
2 Answers | Add Yours
I would disagree with the above post. I believe the Parliamentary system can be more inefficient because it allows for multiple parties and frequent elections. The American system, cumbersome as it sometimes is, has only two parties and more specifically divided powers of government. Continuity of government in the US means alliances can be forged and relationships developed where in a parliamentary system that is more tenuous. Some would argue, though, that parliamentary inefficiency is good for democracy.
Although the English parliamentary system has its problems, it is clearly more efficient than the US congressional system. The US system was set up by the Framers specifically to be less efficient in the hopes that the government would, therefore, be less able to oppress the people.
The most important characteristic of the US system is its checks and balances. For example, the US Congress has two houses and those houses can be (as they now are) controlled by different parties. Right now, the Republicans in the House want to cut spending drastically. However, the Democrats in the Senate are not likely to allow this to happen. This may lead to a shutdown of the government later this year. This is clearly not efficient.
The US system is meant to be inefficient, and it is. The English parliamentary system is much more efficient because there is one government (usually made up of one party) in control and they can get whatever they want done.
We’ve answered 318,916 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question