Comparison Between Presidential and Parliamentary Forms of Governments - Essay Example

Comparison between presidential and parliamentary forms of governments In recent times, the debate regarding which system of governance is better for a particular nation has been a feature of political discussions in many parts of the world. With rising awareness among peoples of different parts of the earth, there is a tendency towards questioning the ways in which the lives of people are governed at a political level. This had led to conflicts of many kinds in many nations where the very concept of a nation has been sought to be rethought. The importance of such questions is greater in third world countries which have lesser amenities for the poor and also greater incidences of poverty and dissatisfaction among the masses. One of the good consequences of this phenomenon is that people have stopped taking their political systems for granted and have begun to think of the merits and demerits of parliamentary and presidential forms of government. This spirit of questioning can be seen even in fictional representations of the nation that question the validity of the very concept like The Shadow Lines (Ghosh 2000). There are also theorists who disagree with the very idea of difference between these two very different forms of government. For instance, the political thinker Juan J. Linz, in his article, “Presidential or parliamentary democracy: Does it make a difference?” talks of the differences that do not make a change at the level of the grassroots (1994). The failure of democracies to fulfill the aspirations of people in different nation states is a cause for worry. This does not however, mean that the very idea is dropped. This needs to be the case as a better alternative is unavailable and according to most political thinkers, impossible. The natural status that democracy has been accorded may be the reason for this; however, whether it is parliamentary or presidential democracy that is good for a single nation or all nations is a question that remains unanswered. To propose any one form of government as a one-stop solution would be a mistake. This is primarily a consequence of the fact that every single nation is different from the other and requires different forms of governments. This paper shall look at four countries- the United States of America, the United Kingdom, India and Sri Lanka. These countries represent different social and political landscapes and also different forms of government. While the United States of America follows a presidential form of governance, India and the United Kingdom are followers of the parliamentary form of government. Sri Lanka has been included in this discussion for a specific purpose- it follows a semi-presidential form of governance which shall enable a student to look at the positives and negatives of either form of government. The fact that the landscapes of these countries are very different in terms of their demographic structures shall also help in a fruitful analysis of difference as a necessity. One of the major problems of a presidential setup is the fact that the personal charisma of the presidential candidate acquires more importance than it needs to. This can be seen in the amount of money that is spent on sprucing up the image of the presidential candidate. It is precisely because of this that the image of the president as a family man and a common man assumes great importance. Issues of development become secondary to the populist appeal that the president has. In such a setup that is meant to not only take a contemptuous view of the intelligence of the masses but also to perpetuate forms of oppression, a lot of money is spent and also, the person’s real abilities may get drowned and unnoticed. As a result of this tremendous need for money, the amount of lobbying in the United States of America has gone up and a lot of money is spent on a less productive activity (Fife 2010). One of the most important differences between the two systems (parliamentary and presidential) is that in the presidential system, the executive, that is the president and his cabinet are elected separately and are not a part of the legislature that forms the laws (Williams 1998, 91). Thus, in presidential systems, there are problems that arise when the president and the party which has the majority in the legislature are not from the same side. One would argue in the light of this statement that parliamentary systems which have a relative unity as a result of the executive being members of the legislature as well work better. But, if one is to take the case of the United States of America, one would see that the united and the divided governments are equally successful in pushing through reforms and major articles of legislation. This may seem to echo the statement that Linz makes about the lack of significance that one should accord to the difference between parliamentary and presidential forms of governments. Modern political systems in a nation consist of much more than the center of power as power tends to be diffused amongst different parts of the nation as Michel Foucault theorized in his essays on power (2006). The parliamentary structure in Britain is one that has inspired many more similar structures, mainly because of its position as the main colonizer till the early half of the twentieth century and not necessarily because of the merits that it possesses. This means that any analysis of it should look at the independence of the government and the fused nature of the executive and the legislature. One of the advantages of the this system is that no decision would be taken by one person, even if it is just on paper that is seems so. In a parliamentary system, acts go through debates and every action of the executive is discussed by the parliament and is not left to the media to speculate and decide in favor of or not. This having been said, it also needs to be said that the media plays a very significant role in the sustenance of the parliament as it plays the role of a check in the functioning of the executive and the legislature. There is thus, an incorporation of the benefits of the presidential system (Gunlicks 2011). However, since the parliament is a remnant of the monarchical system that existed during the feudal eras of Britain, certain elements of it are still feudal. The presidential system that favors the growth of a single individual reminds one of the growth of Napoleon Bonaparte following and during the French Revolution. Napoleon, as Eric J. Hobsbawm argued, was one of the first figures in history who inspired the bourgeoisie to aspire (2004). One of the most important details that one has to remember while analyzing the Indian political landscape is that the Indian nation state is composed of many elements that are not always tied together by a common thread. Unlike European nationalism, Indian nationalism was born largely as a result of the fact that people were oppressed by a common colonizer. Apart from this, there was considerable force that was employed by a central authority in coercing the participation of disparate elements during the Indian independence. The constitution of India grants equality to all citizens of the country (Deogaonkar 1997, 1). This however, is not how the law is always implemented at the level of the life of the common man of India. Caste still plays an important role in the lives of common Indians and Dalits are often at the receiving end, not receiving the same opportunities that are available to other members of the Indian society (Tharu 2009, 263). The politics of identity that parliamentary democracy has introduced into the nation has led to the improvement of the lives of these sections of the society. They are still, however, in certain cases, exploited as nothing but votes in the Indian scenario as one sees from the short story, “Married to separateness” (Singh 2004, 98-110). As one can see, parliamentary forms of democracy have helped in introducing a certain amount of modernity in the Indian consciousness and people have learnt to discard age-old forms of oppression. The fact that the executive has a certain amount of independence and yet, needs the approval of the parliament leads to a swift developmental process being put into place as is seen in the fast pace of growth in GDP that India has displayed over the past few years. Ina country that is as diverse as India, to have a central administration would be insufficient and it would be important to have a system that is as federal as possible. This can be seen in the number of local self-government institutions in the country, the Panchayats, Municipalities and the Corporations being a good example of this feature of the Indian model of governance. This reveals how the makers of the Indian model have incorporated forms of governance that were prevalent during the eras that were pre-colonial. The access of dalits to these forms of governance is suspect; they at least, however, create a more federal structure. The main feature of the Sri Lankan government is the fact that it is a semi-presidential system. This means that there are two forms of the executive that may come into conflict with each other (Munroe 1985, 53). These two forms of the executive are in the forms of the president and the prime minister. Both the people in these offices derive their authority from the fact that they are elected representatives of the people. Thus, the basic principle of a democracy is maintained in the Sri Lankan setup. There also exists a legislature that functions as the law-making body of the nation. There is thus, a member of the government who is independent of the executive and another who is not. The merits of the two forms of the governments seem to be combined in this form; however, the fact that ethnic conflict is a major part of the Sri Lankan social landscape needs to be taken into account while analyzing the decentralized nature of power in this island nation. From the above arguments, one would come to the conclusion that it is not just the main form of governance that affects the well-being of a nation but also the other aspects of the political system such as the media and the general awareness that the citizens of the country possess. To keep the politicians of a country in check and also to create politicians who believe that the interests of the nation should be the most important, the political culture of a nation needs to be a healthy one. Whether a country should follow a parliamentary form of governance or presidential form depends entirely on the social and cultural landscape of that particular nation. References Munroe, Trevor. 1985. An introduction to politics: Lectures for first-year students. Jamaica: Canoe. Print. 53. Gunlicks, Arthur B. 2011. Comparing Liberal Democracies. Bloomington: iUniverse. Print. Deogaonkar, S.G. 1997. Parliamentary System in India. New Delhi: Concept. Print. 1. Fife, Brian L. 2010. Reforming the Electoral Process in America. California: Praegar. Print. Foucault, Michel. 2006. Power. New York: Penguin. Print. Linz, Juan J. 1994. Presidential or parliamentary democracy: Does it make a difference? The Failure of Presidential Democracy. Ed. Juan J. Linz and Arturo Valenzuela. Maryland: The John Hopkins University Press. Print. Williams, Andy. 1998. UK Government and Politics. Oxford: Heinemann. Print. 98. Ghosh, Amitav. 2000. The Shadow Lines. New York: Penguin. Print. Hobsbawm, Eric J. 2004. The Age of Revolution. New York: Hachette. Print. Tharu, Susie. 2009. The Impossible Subject. Caste and gender. Ed. Anupama Rao. New Delhi: Kali. Print. 263. Singh, Narain. 2004. Married to Separateness. Translating caste. Ed. Tapan Basu. New Delhi: Katha. Print. 98-110. Read More