Executive and Legislative System

Executive and Legislative System:

It is in this sense that I understand that in the course of the discussion and readings there was a comparison of the presidential or parliamentary form of government and that the result of this comparison leans more towards the latter although there is also some setbacks in this form it is minor compared to the former form of government.

But first, there are many dimensions that was tackled and that these dimensions are crucial – although not necessarily exclusive to any of the form of the governments – to the comparisons of the two forms of government:

1. Party Organization:
a. Party organization concerns the two forms of the government and their make up; the presidential form of government that owes its party to personalities as a vehicle for election, their party, especially in a multi-party system, is used as merely as a vehicle and to support this claim, some political actors, to be able to run for election or re-election, would shift to another party thus the term “Political Butterfly”. Then the parliamentary form of government which brings about greater party cohesion, maybe through their two party system, and that this party, once elected and gaining majority of the seats would equate to the government thus making an easier way of policy making for legislators.

2. Interest Organization:
a. Interest organization in both forms of government would translate to the different actors as veto players – there are no limits or classification of a veto player – there could be the political actors, the elites, the institutions and others. However, these veto players, in exercising their power and whoever is dominant would then affect policy making of the legislators or the state itself.

3. Bureaucratic Organization:
a. In the parliamentary system, this pertains to the election by the congress or what is called a political appointee – this form ensures stability, in that it gives accountability to the congress and policy continuity, that of which the elected leader would tackle on the same issues because of its responsibility towards the congress. Moreover, it is more accountable due to vertical accountability (the congress) and with better checks and balances.
b. It is different in the presidential form of government in that election is made by the people, making accountability diverse because it leads to the people – making it prone to destabilization – and that it does not ensure continuity of policies because of different administrations advocating independently their own agenda or interests.
4. Transparency:
a. There is no advantage in the two forms of government with regards to transparency; in both fields there is the importance of information dissemination as with regards to the media, moreover, in the parliamentary form of government there is a concept of “question hour” where the prime minister is questioned with what his agenda or policy is all about.
b. The idea of transparency is affected by other institutions such as media and other publications from the government.
5. Information:
a. It is in the sense of the quality and utility of the information regardless of the form of government; it is natural in both forms to take actions with regards to the information being given – this however, may mean that the government is capable of manipulating information for the sake of the policy they pursue or for other interest.
6. Electoral Accountability:
a. The form of the government affects electoral accountability, in the presidential form of government, electoral accountability is secured – that accountability is maintained – by means of elections while that of the parliamentary, being voted by the congress, has a concept of “vote of no confidence” making it internal to them.
7. Political Change:
a. Political change is generally a principle of the change of the government, in the parliamentary form of government, there could be a call for a dissolution of the government though it is not necessarily the power of the prime minister while that of the presidential is through impeachment where there is, in principle, a due process by adhering to the rule of law. Both however may be susceptible to outside forces or unforeseen events like military take over, invasion or people power in the local setting.
8. Institutionalization:
a. Institutionalization affects policy and political institutions – this concept is then directed towards the veto players again because many veto players affect policy formulation.
9. Contestation and Consensus:
a. The parliamentary form of government has a contestation or competition tempered and that the latter appears only upon election period. This type is more into reaching a consensus.
b. The presidential form of government however always has contestations and competitions because of the different powers and roles that might have overlapped making it difficult to create a consensus; moreover, there is a concept of different departments exercising different types of interest and power.
10. Decisiveness:
a. The parliamentary, bearing that power is centered in the congress and not on different people or the prime minister alone, their policy implementation is much more decisive while that of their counterpart is resolute in that it is giving and dividing due to its diverse location of power and different veto players promoting different interests


The first comparison:
Consensus versus Majoritarian – the former is a characterization of the parliamentary form of government in that the veto players or legislative body is more able to reach a consensus in that the power is equally distributed among the members and that this members of the parliament is somehow governed by the majority of the legislators which is in alliance with the leader or their prime minister, it is in this party organization that they own the number of seats and therefore is easily making into effect the policy they want to implement while that of the presidential form of government is majoritarian which means that power is distributed to different departments and that the role of this department is vague and there are much more veto players that could affect the outcome of the policy.

The second comparison:
Concentrated versus dispersed – in my understanding, this talks about the power that is distributed; in the case oft eh parliamentary, power is distributed within them so there is a more effective way of developing a policy and a more decisive manner of implementing it. While that of the presidential, power is distributed among legislators and departments creating a problem of identifying or making a definite power and role for this form of government thus the overlapping of power and role would then translate to a harder way of making policy and that it would result more into a giving and dividing form.

The third comparison:
Decisive versus resolute: As to the dimension, the parliamentary is more decisive and the presidential is more resolute.

With regards to the legislature, they have performed an important role in the transition phase of government – in the sense that it is a decision of a bridge or break form of transition. A bridge form is that from the former regime, that of which was toppled over or removed or whose term has expired, everything is retained and only the political actors are changed while that of the break form is a radical break from the former regime and that there is a new form that is sought after.
Presidents Parliaments and Policy.pdf
Measuring Presidential Power.pdf
Comparative Parliamentary Democracy.pdf
Are Parliamentary Systems Better.pdf
Democratization and Constitutional Crises in Presidential Regimes.pdf
The Crisis of Presidentialism in Latin America.pdf
Comparative Study of Second Chambers.pdf