By Ethan Hollander, Wabash College
When America’s Founding Fathers were writing the constitution for the new republic, one of their most intense debates was about the nature and independence of the executive branch. On the one hand, they were trying to get away from a danger in the British system—the unchecked power of the king—on the other, they feared the contentious factionalism of an unruly parliament.
American Democracy
America’s Founding Fathers invented a new system, one that was a hybrid of the powers of the king and parliament: a relatively powerful chief executive who was independent of the legislature, but nonetheless checked by it—a president who had to work with the legislature, but who didn’t rely upon it to get (or keep) his job.
Like so many trade-offs, this compromise gave American democracy the best or the worst of both worlds, depending on one’s point of view.
In deciding just how independent or how limited the chief executive should be, the American founders were engaged in a debate that continues to this day, about whether a democratic society is better off with a presidential or a parliamentary form of government.
The Chief Executive
On the face of it, this difference between presidential and parliamentary government is really very simple, or at least it seems that way at first. In a presidential system, the chief executive is directly elected by the people, and, for the duration of his or her term, governs more or less independently from the legislature.
In a parliamentary form of government, the chief executive—the prime minister—isn’t directly elected by the people. Instead, the people vote for members of a legislative body, the parliament, and parliament then selects one of its own to head up the executive branch.
Direct versus indirect election of the chief executive is the core difference between presidential and parliamentary forms of government.
But this seemingly subtle difference has a really big effect.
This article comes directly from content in the video series Democracy and Its Alternatives. Watch it now, on Wondrium.
Government Efficiency
Because the prime minister is a product of the legislature, he or she can usually count on parliament’s support. If a prime minister didn’t have a supportive base in parliament, he or she probably wouldn’t have been appointed prime minister in the first place. In a presidential system, on the other hand, all bets are off. The president’s path to power is independent of the legislature, and as a result, there’s a higher likelihood that the president and the legislature will be deeply at odds.
The separation of powers that characterizes the presidential system of government is both a valuable asset and an existential danger. While checks and balances protect against tyranny of the majority, they do so by slowing down the decision-making process, making it harder for the government to pass laws. And this can make it difficult for the government to do anything at all.
Parliamentary democracy, on the other hand, has the potential to be dangerously efficient. The nature of the system is such that the prime minister represents a ruling coalition in parliament. This effectively removes a crucial check on the prime minister’s power, but it does make the passage of legislation easier.
In other words, presidential and parliamentary systems of government represent two sides of that fundamental trade-off between government efficiency and representation.
The Chief Executive and the Assembly
What’s important to remember is that it’s the method of selection, and the interplay between the chief executive and the assembly, that really matters. That’s what determines the strengths and the weaknesses that a country’s political system is likely to have.
In a parliamentary system of government, there’s a good chance that the prime minister and parliament will be able to work together. For one thing, the two institutions almost always start with at least some kind of broad agreement. If they didn’t, that parliament wouldn’t have picked that prime minister in the first place.
Who Holds Power?
In other words, built into a parliamentary system of government is the likelihood that the prime minister will be from a political party that controls a majority—or at least a dominant share—of parliamentary seats. And besides, if the prime minister and parliament do find themselves at an impasse, parliament can always dismiss the prime minister and replace her with someone else.
In a presidential system, by contrast, the chief executive and the legislature are just kind of stuck with each other. The relative immunity of the president means that he can block legislative proposals with impunity. And the legislature can block the president’s actions as well. This creates the potential for a standoff—a standoff that’s only enhanced when the president and the legislature represent different political parties or factions.
That’s the essence of checks and balances.
Common Questions about the Democratic System
In a presidential system, the chief executive is directly elected by the people, and, for the duration of his or her term, governs more or less independently from the legislature. In a parliamentary form of government, the chief executive—the prime minister—isn’t directly elected by the people. Instead, the people vote for members of a legislative body, the parliament, and parliament then selects one of its own to head up the executive branch.
While checks and balances protect against tyranny of the majority in a presidential system, they do so by slowing down the decision-making process, making it harder for the government to pass laws. And this can make it difficult for the government to do anything at all.
The interplay between the chief executive and the assembly is what determines the strengths and the weaknesses that a country’s political system is likely to have.
