In “The Perils of Presidentialism”, Juan Linz argues that parliamentary democracies are more conducive to stable democracies (Linz, 1990). A comparison with the British parliamentary system and the American presidential system demonstrates the parliamentary system is more conducive to stable democracy due to its inherent advantages in accountability, efficiency, and the fixity of the executive term.
The American presidential system struggles with accountability, as each political party cites the other as limiting their executive’s and party’s capabilities in advancing their agenda without due cause. This debate stems from the presidential system’s checks and balances, which are benefits in terms of moderating the risk of a monopoly of power within the government, but undermines accountability of legislation. The system of checks and balances may cause an executive and their party to blame minority party control of other branches of government for a lack of progress, whereas the minority party may accuse the majority party of abusing their power to advance a radical agenda. This creates a political gridlock where the passage of legislation, or lack thereof, cannot be attributed to a single party. Executive accountability is made clear in the American presidential system as the president is able to openly state their agenda and pass executive orders with the force of law. However, the presidential system allows for all individuals within a party to have different prospects for legislation, creating a lack of party discipline, and subsequently a lack of party accountability (Lipset, 1990).
In contrast, in the United Kingdom’s parliamentary system, the majority party or majority coalition creates the government and brings about legislation, while the opposition party is left with the ability to counter the decision made by a majority government through parliamentary question time and debate. This puts full accountability upon the party in power, allowing the constituents a transparent view of both the positives and negatives of the majority party, while being able to hear the criticisms of the opposition party (Horowitz, 1990). Overall, the parliamentary system is able to create a more direct sense of accountability upon a party, whereas the presidential system fosters partisan tensions through a lack of legislative accountability.
Seymour Lipset deduces that a U.K. prime minister with a majority of Parliament behind them has greater efficiency and authority in comparison to a U.S. president (Lipset, 1990). This claim stems from the relationship between efficiency and minority party ability, where the efficiency of a system is determined by the minority party’s ability to moderate legislation successfully. Presidentialism seeks to increase moderation through the balance of power between branches of government, whereas the parliamentary system intends to increase moderation by encouraging public parliamentary communication. Donald Horowitz identifies the inefficiency of presidentialism to stem from the forced cooperation of the executive and legislative branches. In the American system, it is not unlikely for one of the two legislative houses to be of the opposition party. This produces a system of forced cooperation that is slow in deliberation, creates policy that neither party supports, and increases agitation due to the minority party being able to thwart the president’s agenda. Thus, tensions between parties increase and the stability of democracy is left being questioned (Horowitz, 1990).
In contrast, the United Kingdom’s parliamentary system allows for the prime minister to pass legislation while encouraging moderation through numerous rounds of policy debates and parliamentary question time which allow for the opposition to critique the prime minister and seek moderation. If the government fails to address the criticism, the opposition may repeal the bill when they form a government in the future. Therefore, it is in the interest of the majority government to try to self-moderate to keep the bill alive in the long term. This leads to increased durability of the bill, speedy deliberation, and a less polarized democratic environment. Although the American system has the same incentive for moderation, the ability of the opposition to deny executive legislation by having a majority in one of the two houses of Congress negates such incentive.
Juan Linz also argues that the rigidity of America’s presidential system has the drawback of breaking the political process into regimented periods that become central tenets of all political calculations (Linz, 1990). These regimented periods cement inefficient presidents in office for the entire four-year term, with very little room for other branches of government to maneuver around the president. The only exception is removal through impeachment, which has yet to happen in American history although the impeachment process has been triggered numerous times. This allows the president to keep their position, even if their own party has misgivings about their ability or agenda. This creates a democratic environment vulnerable to instability through inefficiency of the executive and an increase in intra and inter party tensions.
In contrast, the Parliamentary system allows for flexibility in the form of a vote of no confidence. If the majority party finds that their chosen prime minister’s government is not leading in an efficient or effective manner, the cabinet could be restructured alongside a change in the prime minister or a general election could be held (Lipset, 1990). The vote of no confidence allows for a holistic restructuring of the government prior to the five-year fixed term that governments typically serve, giving the constituents and the representatives a quicker response to inefficient governments and leaders, a facet that the American presidential system fails to address.
Overall, the United Kingdom’s parliamentary system has the ability to absorb inefficiencies through its inherent advantages in accountability, efficiency, and executive term fixity. From these advantages, the parliamentary system is able to decrease political tension and encourage moderation to a greater extent than that of the presidential system—advantages conducive to a stable democracy.
References
Linz, J. (1990). The Perils of Presidentialism. Journal Of Democracy,, 1(2), 51-69.
Lipset, S. (1990). Presidents vs. Parliaments: The Centrality of Political. Journal Of Democracy, 1(4), 80-83. doi: https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1990.0063
Horowitz, D. (1990). Presidents vs. Parliaments: Comparing Democratic Systems. Journal Of Democracy, 1(4), 73-79. doi: https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1990.0056
Comments