Presidential Systems

The Presidential Government is a democratic system in which the legislature and the executive exist independently and are elected independently of each other. Both are responsible for making and carrying the law sometimes conflict occurs between the two due to competition. In a presidential system the president and his party memeber of congress are not forced into unity which is complete opposite of the parlimentary system. There are two things about cooperation via party ties in the presidential- legislative branches. First parties are loosely unified in presidential systems.

In parliament the premier and cabinet have power to control the advancement of ordinary members if they lack cooperation there advancement may be threatened. In a presidential system the presidennt does not have control of legislature. Secondly the party that holds presidency does not automatically control legislature. Parts of government are elected independently . It is possible for a party to exceed in presidential elections and not exceed in senate and the house of representatives. Quite often parties will not be dominant in both sectors. Most presidential systems that are multiparty negotiate with the president who awards cabinet posts.

Existence of cabinet does not ensure or depend on its ability to pass bills . Presidential congress and legislature have looser relationships than cabinet and supporters of parliament. Some presidential systems are more coordinated than the United States. States such as Russia have an authoritarian democracy. They used tactics in elections to promote their parties such as using legal technicalities and media. This is a faulty democracy being that certain tactics were used and things weren’t handled justly. Within the United States the presidential system has a small amount of coordination between the executive and legislature.

The U. S congress is the perfect example of how legislature works. In congress their are two equal houses The House of Representative and the senate, chairs are appointed by the members of the majority party. Seniority is important when deciding who will chair committees. The length of time served can determine how candidates influence business of their houses,how they persuade and how they preside over a debate. Yet leaders do not control every aspect of their houses. Bills still must be considered by committees these committees are independent and put individual marks on bills.

Power is equally dispersed among the congress so no one group can be in control of what happens. Congress unlike parliament has less party unity when it comes to voting . The lack of unity within a party’s decision could collapse capinent. Congress on the other hand chooses their votes individually. Policy leadership is different in parliamentary and presidential systems. In a presidential system Presidents are expected to control policy being they have a personal mandate from voters. The president is seen as the head public official being that he is voted into presidency by the nation.

In a parliamentary system the cabinet owes positions to members and operate as a team. The presidential cabinet does not appoint or is obligated to appoint members of party nobles. Presidents usually appoint cabinet seats to those closest and most trustworthy to them. Presidential cabinet can contain non political figures. This gives an advantage to the president allowing all focus to be on them. The presidents leadership is constitutionally Stated . The president becomes head of armed forces, head of state matters and becomes responsible for foreign policy.

This allows legislature within the presidential system to be passive and wait to approve or disapprove president proposals. This system is coherent. Coherence may not be easily accomplished if an alliance of parties formed a cabinet as it would in a parliament. In a presidential system leadership is at the forefront while responsibility is shadowed. The division of power creates the inability of one sector to claim responsibility. If the president does not clarify policy or importance of policy it can create two issues. The first being the voters ability to form an opinion of a candidate.

If no policies are stated voters must vote off of their own personal liking of a candidate. Secondly blurred responsibilities within the presidential government creates a lack of respect for policy and can lead to irresponsible behavior. Campaigns in the U. S can be irresponsible as well as misinformational. Candidates promise policy changes and policy proposals based on what voters want to hear. They promise things to build their presidential platforms knowing they do not have that power and may be giving false hope. Creating and implementing policy is not completely controlled by the president even if the candidate wins.

There a very few comprehensive policies in a presidential system. In a presidential system policies are compromised and strung together. In most cases they are not in coherence with one another. This may lead to a fragmented system in which governments timely response may be hindered. Criteria for the recruitment of a leader of parliament and a presidential system is extremely different. In a parliamentary system the selection process is very different. The majority of parliament members live similar lives and have similar experience in work fields. many members of parliament are exposed to topics and policies that pose issues very early.

Members in parliament are very similar in aspects of skill and knowledge. Thus those who debate well and always agree with the vote of their party will exceed. Members of parliament are selected on how good they can cooperate and not how diverse they are. Presidential systems do not require a legislative background. most presidents establish themselves as different public figures. Many members of U. S presidency differentiated in careers. The diversity of those in executive chairs may benefit the president. Different ideals and backgrounds can create a wide array of solutions . Though diversity may pose a threat to the system.

It does not always ensure that the candidates have experience or knowlwedge of certain policies. It is safe to say outcomes of parliament are more predictable than those of U. S congress. The parliament controls the executives and often the prime minister and cabinet report to parliament. Any change in government must be reported to members of the parliament. Yet in presidential systems matters of legislature are more isolated. Isolation in presidencies can portray an attitude of arrogance and lack of control. Unlike Parliament matters of government are loosely communicated. In the case of a change parliamentary systems are well prepared .

If a leader of parliment were to lose political supporrt or new issue arise , a new cabinent leader may be selected. In a presidential system presidents server a fxed amount of years within there term this means it is difficukt to replace this leader even if the public disagrees completley. Only during illness and death of a president will the vice president rise into power and help lead the nation. In a parliamentary system the executive is split into prime minister and cabinet. their responsibilities are political as well as administrative. A head of state separately symbolically represents leadership of the state.

A King or queen personifies the state and is the one who receives scrutiny and praise. A prime minister is the figure head of administrative leadersip but is not a revered public figure. In a parlimentary system there is no need for additional power or public representation being that parliment hold power within itself. In the United States the executive and symbolic representative are combined. This can be a problem as presidents can gain certain powers and not operate as fairly or justly as they should. This may be seen as a flaw in a presidential system being that in a parliamentary system the public support is not needed.

1Figure A. 1Gen De Gaulle Although parliamentary system are very efficient it may not be a system that works fluidly everywhere. In certain presidential systems the mixture of parliament and presidential systems occur. This is known as hybrid presidential system. In france Gen De Gaulle wanted an imperial type of presidency he wanted something that would be long lasting durable and stable. Presidential systems usually appear to be more stable. The imperial presidency leaned more to an authoritarian leader having one being be in charge of all great matters of the state.

This system is said to have some weaknesses based on the unclear division of authority and cohabitation yet it can have strength in decisiveness and more professionals concentrated in areas of authority. Accountability of democratic government revolves around its citizens. Accountability is very important to democracy but isn’t always easily achieved. Legislators and executives who review and or create bills are not under the jurisdiction of the media. Citizens can not follow the process of the executive . This can be an advantage for officials who may use their positions to misinform citizens.

Reporters devote their time to gaining knowledge about the governments doings. Reporters dedicate their life to researching and staying up to date with the government and relaying their finding to the public. Despite their research reporter do not hold the powers of an executive and are limited in information they gain. In a presidential system the focus is always on the president or individual within the executive. If more parties were disciplined as those in parliament it is a strong possibility that citizens would grasp information easier. Yet parties in America are not focused on being that the are not tightly wound together.

The focus is never on what the party does as a whole but the individual who won presidency. This can be a weakness for accountability because the president can not be held accountable for every single thing. 2Political cartoon reflecting retrospective voting Voters within a presidential system base accountability on things relatable to them on certain occasions.. Citizens do not have access to information that officials control which leads them to vote for the candidate who could either help them live a good life or give them the opportunity to live a good life.

Retrospective voting begins to reflect personal values or opinions,questioning “What will you do ? ” or”“How will you bring a change of events in my life? ”. Judgements of the voters begin to become less complex voters do not focus their attention on the law or the politics behind the candidate. Voters begin to base their opinions on how the candidate faces turmoil or what good deeds they do this leads them to be more interested in the executives personal life and not the stature of their power.

This flaw can lead executives to take extra faults for things they may not be in control of. Ultimately voters do not have access to all information regarding the politics behind executives so accountability will be spotty. Bibliography Tan, Dr. “France’s Parties and Hybrid System. ” . http://people. uncw. edu/tanp/Franceday1. html (accessed October 24, 2013). Ceaser, James. “The Businessman vs. the Professor. ” The Weekly Standard, 04 30, 2012. http://www. weeklystandard. com/articles/businessman-vs-professor_640523. html? page=1 (accessed October 24, 2013).