Parliamentary vs Presidential

[Estro Felino]

Which model is better and why?
I'm oversimplifying the description of those two models to make it as clear as possible.


Presidential model (USA, Mexico, Argentina..)
The people directly elects the chief of the executive power, the President, who chooses the ministers, members of the Government. In a different moment the people elects the Parliament (called Congress in the US), that holds the legislative power; if the two chambers of the Parliament have the same powers and tasks, it deals with perfect bicameralism. Imperfect, if they are different.

Parliamentary model (UK, Germany, Italy)
The people directly elects its representatives, the parliamentarians who hold the legislative power. The Parliament has to give its trust to a specific Government, whose chief is called Prime Minister (Kanzler in Germany), and who chooses the ministers. So a Government is "elected" by the majority of parliamentarians, who can form political coalitions to create a stable executive power.
Then there is a apolitical figure of constitutional control called monarch (in parliamentary monarchies like UK) or President (in parliamentary republics like Germany and Italy), but he\she has formal powers only.

Semi-Presidential model (France)
The people directly elects a president, the chief of the executive power who chooses his Government (Prime Minister and ministers). This Government must obtain the trust from the Parliament, directly elected by the people. It can happen that the Government, to whom the Parliament grants its trust, belongs to a different political orientation than the President. In this case, it deals with a situation called cohabitation , which is pretty rare btw.

 

[oldbadger]

Which model is better and why?
I'm oversimplifying the description of those two models to make it as clear as possible.


Presidential model (USA, Mexico, Argentina..)
The people directly elects the chief of the executive power, the President, who chooses the ministers, members of the Government. In a different moment the people elects the Parliament (called Congress in the US), that holds the legislative power; if the two chambers of the Parliament have the same powers and tasks, it deals with perfect bicameralism. Imperfect, if they are different.

Parliamentary model (UK, Germany, Italy)
The people directly elects its representatives, the parliamentarians who hold the legislative power. The Parliament has to give its trust to a specific Government, whose chief is called Prime Minister (Kanzler in Germany), and who chooses the ministers. So a Government is "elected" by the majority of parliamentarians, who can form political coalitions to create a stable executive power.
Then there is a apolitical figure of constitutional control called monarch (in parliamentary monarchies like UK) or President (in parliamentary republics like Germany and Italy), but he\she has formal powers only.

Semi-Presidential model (France)
The people directly elects a president, the chief of the executive power who chooses his Government (Prime Minister and ministers). This Government must obtain the trust from the Parliament, directly elected by the people. It can happen that the Government, to whom the Parliament grants its trust, belongs to a different political orientation than the President. In this case, it deals with a situation called cohabitation , which is pretty rare btw.

Hi.........
Interesting thread.....

I think that you should have included the Israeli democratic system, where coalitions are built from both very large and very small groups of folks.

Very small groups of people can get heard because their representatives are needed in any coalition Government and thus, the tiniest parties have a say.

I wish the UK was split into more factions like that...... but that's just me.....

 

[LuisDantas]

Of the four models presented, I feel that Presidentialism is by far the most flawed, at least for communities that are not tiny. Which of the remaining three is best I can not say.

Incidentally, Brazil has been Presidentialist for well over fifty years and to this day has little interest in the alternatives, mostly because we tend to be emotionally attached to the (IMO fascistic) idea of a "true leader that will fix things".

Unfortunately, we have very often convinced ourselves that we found such a leader, facts be darned.

That led to many a situation of politics degenerating into (or never raising above) messianic promises, empty discourse, shallow intrigue and general infantility, as the system keeps poisoning itself further with each interaction.

In retrospect, it is remarkable that Brazil has lasted this far with such a structure, as wide as it is immaterial and pretentious. For a long time now one of the best advantages that a political candidate may have is being a complete unknown. Politicians that are both well-liked and well-known are nearly always of a disturbingly messianic bent and tend to make promises far beyond any reasonable expectation.

It is a sorry situation that will unavoidably fall under its own weight, although where the pieces will fall is very much an open question.

 

[Estro Felino]

Hi.........
Interesting thread.....

Thank u...I love loud , messy , heated debates in Parliaments

 

[Jumi]

Parliamentary republic. You don't have to fear getting some guy for president who will ruin things on his own. Much more stable, but less jingoistic.

 

[sayak83]

Which model is better and why?
I'm oversimplifying the description of those two models to make it as clear as possible.


Presidential model (USA, Mexico, Argentina..)
The people directly elects the chief of the executive power, the President, who chooses the ministers, members of the Government. In a different moment the people elects the Parliament (called Congress in the US), that holds the legislative power; if the two chambers of the Parliament have the same powers and tasks, it deals with perfect bicameralism. Imperfect, if they are different.

Parliamentary model (UK, Germany, Italy)
The people directly elects its representatives, the parliamentarians who hold the legislative power. The Parliament has to give its trust to a specific Government, whose chief is called Prime Minister (Kanzler in Germany), and who chooses the ministers. So a Government is "elected" by the majority of parliamentarians, who can form political coalitions to create a stable executive power.
Then there is a apolitical figure of constitutional control called monarch (in parliamentary monarchies like UK) or President (in parliamentary republics like Germany and Italy), but he\she has formal powers only.

Semi-Presidential model (France)
The people directly elects a president, the chief of the executive power who chooses his Government (Prime Minister and ministers). This Government must obtain the trust from the Parliament, directly elected by the people. It can happen that the Government, to whom the Parliament grants its trust, belongs to a different political orientation than the President. In this case, it deals with a situation called cohabitation , which is pretty rare btw.View attachment 24103

Parliamentary republic with multi-party system and both houses directly elected (but with the upper house having a longer term). It prevents one person (the president) from ever becoming so powerful that he/she can subvert the democracy, while the longer terms for upper house becomes a check against fickle populist waves.

 

[Stevicus]

Which model is better and why?
I'm oversimplifying the description of those two models to make it as clear as possible.


Presidential model (USA, Mexico, Argentina..)
The people directly elects the chief of the executive power, the President, who chooses the ministers, members of the Government. In a different moment the people elects the Parliament (called Congress in the US), that holds the legislative power; if the two chambers of the Parliament have the same powers and tasks, it deals with perfect bicameralism. Imperfect, if they are different.

Parliamentary model (UK, Germany, Italy)
The people directly elects its representatives, the parliamentarians who hold the legislative power. The Parliament has to give its trust to a specific Government, whose chief is called Prime Minister (Kanzler in Germany), and who chooses the ministers. So a Government is "elected" by the majority of parliamentarians, who can form political coalitions to create a stable executive power.
Then there is a apolitical figure of constitutional control called monarch (in parliamentary monarchies like UK) or President (in parliamentary republics like Germany and Italy), but he\she has formal powers only.

Semi-Presidential model (France)
The people directly elects a president, the chief of the executive power who chooses his Government (Prime Minister and ministers). This Government must obtain the trust from the Parliament, directly elected by the people. It can happen that the Government, to whom the Parliament grants its trust, belongs to a different political orientation than the President. In this case, it deals with a situation called cohabitation , which is pretty rare btw.View attachment 24103

I'm not sure that I would go with any of these models.

One thing about the US system, at least in theory, is that there is a separation of powers and a system of checks and balances - not just within the three branches of the Federal government, but also with state governments having a certain measure of autonomy. However, this issue itself has become a serious bone of contention within US politics, and those who purportedly support one or the other (states rights vs. federalism) are never terribly consistent in their advocacy of these principles.

As for me, I would like to see our national government structured somewhat similarly to many state governments in the U.S.

For example, in my own state, we have a governor, a bicameral legislature, and a state supreme court - very similar to the structure of the Federal government.

However, a key difference is that the governor doesn't get to choose his own government, as many key positions are also directly elected by the people. Offices as Secretary of State (not to be confused with the Federal post of the same name), State Treasurer, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Mine Inspector, members of the Corporation Commission, etc. - all elected directly by the people. They are not appointed by the governor or confirmed by the legislature.

Incidentally, in Arizona, the Secretary of State is also the next in line for succession if the governor is no longer able to hold office. Unlike most other states, there is no office for lieutenant governor, although such offices are elected separately by the people, not as a package deal on a single ticket, as presidential elections are conducted.

Similarly, at the county level, we elect certain county offices, such as county assessor, county recorder, county sheriff, and local school boards - among others.

We also have referenda and ballot propositions in which state laws and/or the state constitution can be changed or enacted by direct election.

Judges are still appointed, but the voters still have the option to retain or dismiss them.

Another aspect of our state government is that we also have the ability to hold recall elections, which is something I'll bet a lot of people would like to have at the Federal level right about now.

This is what I would like to see happen at the Federal level:

1. The president and vice-president should not be on the same ticket. Both offices should be elected separately.

2. Each of the cabinet level posts should also be separate elected offices.

3. Just as we elect county sheriffs, we should also be able to elect the FBI Director and CIA Director, along with similar offices which may not be at a cabinet level yet still powerful enough to warrant greater accountability to the people. This could also include the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the National Security Advisor.

4. Just as we elect our Corporation Commission, the FCC and similar Federal agencies should also be directly elected.

5. Ballot propositions should also be allowed at the Federal level.

6. Recall elections should be allowed.

7. Retention of Federal judges should be an option given to voters.

 

[metis]

I prefer a parliamentary republic, especially since the presidential system is too inefficient, thus prone to gridlock.