Comparison Between Presidentialism and Parliamentarism in Terms of Separation of Power

422 Words2 Pages
The central idea of presidentialism is the separation of power and checks and balances, which provides independent power bases to both the president and the legislature. The president is only in control of the executive branch and cannot participate in the legislative process theoretically. Also, the legislature is not under any constraint to oppose the legislative initiatives from the president if they think that they are unsuitable for the country, since both the legislature and the president are elected by the citizens. All of them have a fixed period of term and they can do nothing to each other practically as long as they remain in good graces of their constituencies. This facilitates a slower and more deliberative legislative process. An advantage of this is that minority groups have more opportunities to protect their interests by voicing out their opinions, which will be reflected by the legislators in the congress. They are free to stand on the minority side or even antagonistic to the president during the discussion of different issues. Therefore, the policy may take time to be ultimately adopted but is more likely to be a good one, and the president may not be able to guarantee the delivery of campaign promises in most cases. However, the downside is that some social problems, including some urgent ones, can be unresolved for a long period of time as arguments shuffle between the legislature and the executive. On the other hand, the separation of power between the legislature and executive in parliamentarism is less clear due to the overlapping of personnel in the two institutions. The legislative initiatives of the government can be easily passed owing to the presence of a central link, in which the prime minister is both the chief executive of the government and the leader of the majority party at the same time. A strong party discipline ensures
Open Document