Political Stability in New Democracies: Presidentialism or Parliamentarism?
Question
For new democracies in the developing world, which system—presidentialism or parliamentarism— is more likely to ensure political stability? Why? And do we have a universal answer for all countries?
Presidentialism and Parliamentarism are two of the most commonly practised political systems in modern politics, whether they be existing in pure forms or hybrid forms. Amongst the two, which system is more conducive to the maintenance of political stability, particularly in newly democratized states, has remained heatedly discussed. Presidentialism and Parliamentarism are differentiated by the election and removal methods of the political leader of the executive branch, the scope of authority of the executive leader, and the power relationship between the executive and the legislative branches. Their distinctive features have ensured political stability in one way or another, which will be discussed and contrasted in this paper. To assist analysis, “political stability” shall be defined as “smooth transition to and consolidation of democracy” in the context of this paper. To substantiate the analysis, examples of new democracies arisen from the Third Wave of Democratization will be included. Lastly, a concluding remark shall be drawn on the question whether there is a universal answer for all new democracies.
Presidentialism is widely adopted in the United States of America (US) and Latin America. A key feature of presidentialism is the independence of the executive and legislative branches from each other. The president, as head of the executive branch and the whole government, is “independently elected on the basis of popular election” (Mahler, 2008). Since he enjoys public mandate derived from the election, neither him, nor the cabinet chosen by him, are directly accountable to the legislature. He is often vested with two important roles, namely the Head of State (performing symbolically as the representative of a state in ceremonial functions) and
For new democracies in the developing world, which system—presidentialism or parliamentarism— is more likely to ensure political stability? Why? And do we have a universal answer for all countries?
Presidentialism and Parliamentarism are two of the most commonly practised political systems in modern politics, whether they be existing in pure forms or hybrid forms. Amongst the two, which system is more conducive to the maintenance of political stability, particularly in newly democratized states, has remained heatedly discussed. Presidentialism and Parliamentarism are differentiated by the election and removal methods of the political leader of the executive branch, the scope of authority of the executive leader, and the power relationship between the executive and the legislative branches. Their distinctive features have ensured political stability in one way or another, which will be discussed and contrasted in this paper. To assist analysis, “political stability” shall be defined as “smooth transition to and consolidation of democracy” in the context of this paper. To substantiate the analysis, examples of new democracies arisen from the Third Wave of Democratization will be included. Lastly, a concluding remark shall be drawn on the question whether there is a universal answer for all new democracies.
Presidentialism is widely adopted in the United States of America (US) and Latin America. A key feature of presidentialism is the independence of the executive and legislative branches from each other. The president, as head of the executive branch and the whole government, is “independently elected on the basis of popular election” (Mahler, 2008). Since he enjoys public mandate derived from the election, neither him, nor the cabinet chosen by him, are directly accountable to the legislature. He is often vested with two important roles, namely the Head of State (performing symbolically as the representative of a state in ceremonial functions) and
References: Bagehot, W. (1981). The English Constitution. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 66 Carey, J Central Intelligence Agency. (2009). "Korea, South". The World Factbook. Gressle, S Heywood, A. (2000). Key Concepts in Politics. New York, N.Y. : Palgrave Macmillan. Huntington, S. P. (1991). The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. US: University of Oklahoma Press Lijphart, A. 1996. Constitutional Choices for New Democracies, in L. Diamond and M. F. Plattner (Eds.) The Global Resurgence of Democracy. Baltimore, Md.: John Hopkins University Press, pp.162-173. Linz, J. J. (1990). The perils of presidentialism. Journal of Democracy, 1(1), 51-69. Lijphart, A Lijphart, A. (2008). Thinking about democracy: power sharing and majority rule in theory and practice Mahler, G. S. (2008). The Executive. In Comparative Politics: An Institutional and Cross-National Approach. (5th ed.). (pp. 104-118). Upple Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Mainwarang, S. (1993). Presidentialism, Multipartism, and Democracy. Comparative Political Studies, 26(2), 198-228. doi: 10.1177/0010414093026002003 Power, T., The Pen is Mightier Than the Congress: Decree Authority in Brazil, in J Rokkan, S. (1970). Citizens, Elections, Parties: Approaches to the Comparative Study of the Process of Development Shin, D. C. (1994). On the Third Wave of Democratization: A Synthesis and Evaluation of Recent Theory and Research. World Politics, 47(1), pp. 135-170 Shugart, M.S Stepan, A., & Skach, C. (1993). Constitutional Frameworks and Democratic Consolidation: Parliamentarianism versus Presidentialism. World Politics, 46(1), 1-22. The Constitution of the United States.