WHY THE PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM IS BETTER FOR OUR DEMOCRACY A proper definition for democracy is a form of government organized in accordance with the principles of popular soverngnity, political equality, popular consultation, and majority rule. There are two modern liberal democracies in the world in every country, parliamentary systems and the presidential system. In most parts of the Western world, in such countries as Great Britain and the Neverthalands use the parliamentary system. In the Eastern parts of the world, in such countries as the United States, use the presidential system. The most well organized system that is better for democracy is the presidential system, because of its advantages, especially the separation of powers along with how well it works in the different parts of the world. It will be shown how the presidential system works in the parts of the world, how the parliamentary systems works in the parts of the world, the disadvantages and advantages of each, and why the presidential system is better for democracy.
The book defines the parliamentary system as the government worked with the fusion of powers principles, which is the “concentration of all policy-making power in the legislative.” This statement just means that all of law making bodies work together to make the laws of the land. In the parliamentary system, the legislative does more than just make the laws, but they choose among its members in the cabinet to express and exercise the executive powers is by a cabinet and its members are mostly legislative and are chosen by and are responsible for the legislature. Also in this system there are indeterminate terms of office meaning that the members in the executive cabinet have no set limit to serve a term in the legislative. For example, a member of the parliament can serve in the legislative until they decide to leave or if they die for any reason. Also there are some other characteristics to this system. First, there are more than one or two political parties.
The Essay on The Changing World of Work and Society
Therefore, the changing world of work and organisations is an important area of study for sociology. There are many different sociological theories which attempt to describe how an individual’s relationship to society is affected by work. This essay will describe and evaluate some of these theories. Functionalist sociologists see work as an essential activity to ensure the stability of society. ...
Many times this is an example of a coalition government, which is defined by the book as, “the arrangements in which the government is managed by an alliance of two or more separate parties each of which has members in the top ministerial post.” For example, in a parliamentary party system the different parties may work in the legislature to get things done. This is an advantage of having this system apart of the government because this system may be more fractional ized and works together. This method does not always work because there should be some differences and less fraction ization for a government to have different views and establish a government. In a parliamentary system, there are too many different figures in the representational government such as Head of State and Head of Government, which is the prime minister and could have crossed up powers. For example, depending on the person and no real knowledge of what is going on or if the person just does not want to obey common rule. The Head of State could want all of the power and not to follow the laws of the parliamentary system and rule by law.
This could cause a problem between the distinctions of the Head of State and the Head of Government. In an article entitled There Is No Separation of Powers in a Parliamentary System; it states that people have the tendency to be confused by thinking that appointing different people to sit in the executive seat you have a separation of power in the system because they all work together with no separation or distinction of powers. The reason for this is because of its origin and nature they do not allow for one another to collide. The meaning behind this is that, anytime an executive has to depend on the legislative for its way of being legitimate there is no real separation. The presidential system is defined by the book as the government worked with the separation of power principles, which means that the different departments really do not work together and are very specific structural and historical. The reason why it is said to be historical is because, the presidential model of the United States is a direct rejection of a strong executive government with their revolt against the British, in turn, which was a revolt against the parliamentary system.
The Essay on The Roman Empire Romans Power Government
The Roman Empire Rome became the most powerful empire of the Mediterranean for numerous reasons. The most significant advantage was the location where Rome resides. The location allowed them to become involved in the trade around the sea and build a stable economy, as well as succeed at agriculture and farming. Another reason for their success was the government system which started out as a ...
According to our textbook, the executive in a presidential system is that the president can function independently of the legislature. The President does not need the legal confidence of the legislative or Congress in order to remain in office, unless in the extreme case of impeachment. He is directly elected by the majority rule of the people. Also, there is no Head of State, just a Head of Government, which is the president. This is better because there is just one person that has the power besides the legislative instead of two, which there would have to be a distinction of power. The biggest advantage that the presidential system has is the separation of powers.
The textbook defines separation of powers as the division of government power among equal legislative, executive, and judicial. This means that all parts of government are equal as for power but there powers should not overlap each other. Our textbook also shows two main devices under this principle which are: separation of personnel, which means that under the U. S. Constitution there are specific prohibition of any person from holding office in more than one of the three branches of government at a time. For example, a federal judge cannot be on the president’s cabinet and be a senator all at the same time.
Another main device in the principle is the checks and balance, this give the three different branches the power to check each other. An example is that Congress is empowered to check the president by refusing to pass bills the president request, withholding appropriations for executive and administrative agencies, denying approval of presidential appointments to other top executive posts, and impeachment. This principle works better for democracy because it keeps everyone accountable for what goes on in the government instead of the powers working together getting in each others way. There should be separation of powers to make the government work better and stay focus on their duties. In conclusion, there are advantages and disadvantages of both systems, but the presidential system is better for democracy. The reason for my answer is the separation of powers over the fusion of powers.
The Essay on Seperation Of Powers Government Separation Branch
Separation of Powers Separation of powers is the act of separating of responsibilities of the three branches of the government. The idea of this separation is not a new one either. John Locke originally talked about it. He stated that the legislative power should be divided between the King and Parliament in England. Another man also spoke about this separation, the French writer Montesquieu, who ...
There is no real separation in a parliamentary system. Separation of powers is better for a democracy because the powers of the government should be separate in order for a government to work orderly and function continuously to make the country stay in balance.
