Online Encyclopedia
Presidential system
A presidential system, or a congressional system, is a system of government of a republic that has the following three features
- the president is both head of state and head of government.
- the president is popularly elected (in contrast to being chosen by the legislature)
- the president has a fixed term of office. Although the president can be impeached for misconduct, there is no vote of confidence by which the president can be removed for incompetence or unpopularity.
(Giovanni Sartori)
The term presidential system is often used in contrast to cabinet government, which is usually a feature of parliamentarism.
Countries with congressional and presidential systems include the United States, the Philippines, Mexico, and most countries in South America. The widespread use of presidentialism in the Americas has caused political scientists to dub the Americas as "the continent of presidentialism."
| Contents |
Types of Presidents
Many countries with a president as head of state do not operate under what is described as the presidential system. The most defining element of a presidential system being the degree in which the head of state participates in day-to-day governance.
Presidential governments make no distinction between the positions of Head of state and Head of government, both of which are held by the president. Most parliamentary governments have a symbolic Head of State in the form of a president or monarch. That person is responsible for the formalities of state functions as the figurehead while the constitutional prerogatives as Head of Government are generally exercised by the Prime Minister. Such figurehead presidents tend to be elected in a much less direct manner than active, presidential system presidents, for example by a vote of the legislature.
There are also a few countries - the Czech Republic and South Africa being examples - which have powerful presidents who are elected by the legislature. These presidents are chosen in the same way as a prime minister, yet are still heads of state and heads of government, and cannot be deposed early. This method of electing a president was a plank in Madison's Virginia Plan and was seriously considered by the Framers of the American Constitution.
Some political scientists consider the conflation of head of state and head of government duties to be a problem of presidentialism because criticism of the president cum head of state is criticism of the state itself.
Presidents in presidential systems are always active participants in the political process, though the extent of their relative power may be influenced by the political makeup of the legislature and whether their supporters or opponents have the dominant position therein. In some presidential systems such as South Korea or the Republic of China (on Taiwan), there is an office of the prime minister or premier, but unlike semi-presidential or parliamentary systems, the premier is responsible to the president rather than to the legislature.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Presidential Systems
One of the most common criticisms of presidentialism is its difficulty in sustaining democratic practices. With the outstanding exception the United States, presidentialism has slipped into authoritarianism at least once in every nation where it has been attempted. These failures are due to political cultures unconducive to democracy, the prominent role of the military, but also to the design flaws of presidentialism itself.
For example, Ecuador has presented a tragi-comedy of democratic failures just since 1979. Presidents have ignored the legislature or bypassed it altogether. One president even had the National Assembly teargassed, another president was kidnapped by paratroopers until he agreed to certain congressional demands. In 1984, President Febres Cordero tried to physically bar new Congressionally-appointed supreme court appointees from taking their seats. "From 1979 through 1988, Ecuador staggered through a succession of executive-legislative confrontations that created a near permanent crisis atmosphere in the polity." Columbia has similarly presented the problems inherent in presidentialism in the last twenty years. Presidents have also gone around Congress to legislate and simply to govern. In Brazil, presidents accomplish their objectives by creating executive agencies over which Congress had no say (Checks and Balances, pp 34-35)
Aside from the tension between the legislative and executive branches, there are other reasons for the failure of presidential systems. Winning the presidency is a winner-take-all, zero-sum prize -- unlike a prime minister, who is likely to have to form a coalition, a president's party can rule without any allies for four to six years, a worrisome situation for many interest groups.
- The danger that zero-sum presidential elections pose is compounded by the rigidity of the president's fixed term in office. WInners and losers are sharply defined for the entire period of the presidential mandate. . . losers must wait four or five years without any access to executive power and patronage. The zero-sum game in presidential regimes raises the stakes of presidential elections and inevitably exacerbates their attendant tension and polarization.
Constitutions that only require plurality support are especially prone to catastrophe. Salvador Allende had become president of Chile with less than 40% of the vote. In 1962 Peru experienced a coup when no candidate received more than one-third of the vote, and the election resulted in no winner at all.
Parliamentary systems can also slip into authoritarianism, but have done so less commonly. Of forty one Third World countries that established parliamentary systems since WWII, 28, or nearly two-thirds, have become healthy democracies. Where parliamentary systems slip into authoritarianism, the dictator will often change the constitution to a presidential one. Apparently, dictatorships are more easily sustained in a presidential system than a parliamentary.
Other than their tendency to slip into authoritarianism, presidential systems do not offer voters the kind of accountability seen in parliamentary systems. It is easy for either the president or Congress to escape blame by blaming the other. Describing the United States, former Treasury Secretary C. Douglas Dillon said "the president blames Congress, the Congress blames the president, and the public remains confused and disgusted with government in Washington." (Checks and Balances , 10)
Consider the example of the increase in the federal debt that occurred during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Arguably, the deficts were the product of a bargain between President Reagan and Speaker of the House of Representatives Tip O'Neill: O'Neill agreed not to oppose Reagan's tax cuts if Reagan would sign the Democrats' budget. Each side could claim to be displeased with the debt, plausibly blame the other side for the deficit, and still tout their own success.
Another problem of presidentialism is that no matter how unpopular or incompetent, it is extremely difficult to remove a President from office early. Consider John Tyler, who only became president because William Henry Harrison had died after thirty days. Tyler was loathed by the Whigs who had elected him, refused to sign their legislation, but remained firmly in control of the executive branch. Since there is no legal way to remove an unpopular president, many presidential countries have experienced military coups to remove a leader who has lost his mandate, as in Salvador Allende. Presumably, in a parliamentary system, the unpopular leader could have been removed by a vote of no confidence, a device which is a "pressure release valve" for political tension.
Walter Bagehot also criticized presidentialism because they do not allow a transfer in power in the event of an emergency.
- Under a cabinet constitution at a sudden emergency this people can choose a ruler for the occasion. It is quite possible and even likely that he would not be ruler before the occasion. The great qualities, the imperious will, the rapid energy, the eager nature fit for a great crisis are not required - are impediments- in common times. A Lord Liverpool is better in everyday politics than a Chatham- a Louis Philippe far better than a Napoleon. By the structure of the world we want, at the sudden occurrence of a grave tempest, to change the helmsman - to replace the pilot of the calm by the pilot of the storm.
- But under a presidential government you can do nothing of the kind. The American government calls itself a government of the supreme people; but at a quick crisis, the time when a sovereign power is most needed, you cannot find the supreme people. You have got a congress elected for one fixed period, going out perhaps by fixed installments, which cannot be accelerated or retarded - you have a president chosen for a fixed period, and immovable during that period: . . there is no elastic element. . . you have bespoken your government in advance, and whether it is what you want or not, by law you must keep it . . . (The English Constitution, the Cabinet)
Years later, Bagehot's observation came to life during World War II, when Neville Chamberlain was replaced with Winston Churchill.
Finally, many have criticized presidential systems for their slowness in responding to their citizens' needs. Often, the checks and balances make action extremely difficult. Walter Bagehot said of the American system "the executive is crippled by not getting the law it needs, and the legislature is spoiled by having to act without responsibility: the executive becomes unfit for its name, since it cannot execute what it decides on; the legislature is demoralized by liberty, by taking decisions of others [and not itself] will suffer the effects." (ibid.)
Woodrow Wilson, the only president ever to earn a Ph.D., also criticized presidentialism and praised parliamentarianism. Wilson wrote
- I ask you to put this question to yourselves: Should we not draw the Executive and Legislature closer together? Should we not, on the one hand, give the individual leaders of opinion in Congress a better chance to have an intimate party in determinnig who should be president, and the president, on the other hand, a better chance to approve himself a statesman, and his advisors capable men of affairs, in the guidance of Congress? (the Politics of Woodrow Wilson, 41-48)
Yet, presidentialism does have many advantages in terms of democracy, process, and surviving emergencies.
A prime minister is chosen by a few individuals of the legislature, a president is chosen by the people. A popularly elected leadership is inherently more democratic than a leadership chosen by the elite.
Despite the existence of the no confidence vote, in practice, it is extremely difficult to stop a cabinet that has made its decision. To vote down the cabinet's legislation is to bring down a government and have new elections, a step few backbenchers are willing to take. Hence, a no confidence vote in some parliamentary countries, like Britain, only occurs a few times in a century. In 1931, David Lloyd George told a select committee "Parliament has really no control over the executive; it is a pure fiction." (Leave the Constitution Alone, Arthur M. Schlesinger, 1982)
The lack of checks and balances and congressional investigation of the executive means that misconduct by a prime minister may never be discovered. Writing about Watergate, Woodrow Wyatt, a former MP, said "don't think a Watergate couldn't happen here, you just wouldn't hear about it." (ibid)
Also, even though presidential systems may have long periods of legislative inaction, when the public demands it, presidential systems can be just as quick moving as parliamentary ones. Checks and balances did not interfere significantly with the legislative programs of Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, the Roosevelts, or Lyndon Johnson. "When the country is not sure what ought to be done, it may be that delay, debate, and further consideration are not a bad idea." (ibid) When Franklin Delano Roosevelt overstepped and tried to pack the Supreme Court, Congress was there to check him.
Divided government also restrains the excesses of both parties. "There are some of us who think gridlock is the best thing since indoor plumbing," Republican Congressman Bill Frenzel wrote in 1995,
- Gridlock is the natural fift of the Framers of the Constitution gave us so that the country would not be subjected to policy swings resulting from the whimsy of the public. And the competition -- whether multi-branch, multi-level, or multi-house - is important to those checks and balances and to our ongoing kind of centrist government. Thank heaven we do not have a government that nationalizes one year and privatizes next year, and so on ad infinitum. (Checks and Balances, 8)
Although votes of no confidence tend to be rare in some parliamentary systems, they are over common in a few others. Italy, Israel, Weimar Germany, and the French Fourth Republic all have or had problems with governmental stability. When parliamentary systems have multiple parties and governments depend on coalitions, as they do with nations that vote by proportional representation, extremist parties can use the threat of leaving the coalition to blackmail the centrist parties who are leading.
Finally, although more parliamentary regimes have survived in the Third World than presidential ones, the success of parliamentary regimes may depend more on the British-influence of those parliamentary countries than anything else. Britain, unlike most other colonial powers, let native peoples have some practice of governing. Britain's former colonies have been more successful in other ways as well.
Parliament versus Congress
Though presidential systems can theoretically operate with either a congress or a parliament the former is far more common. For this reason, the term congressional system is often used interchangeably with presidential system.
Differences from a Cabinet System
A number of key theoretical differences exist between a presidential and a cabinet system:
- In a presidential system, the central principle is that the legislative and executive branches of government should be separate. This leads to the separate election of president, who is elected to office for a fixed term, and only removable for gross misdemeanor by impeachment and dismissal. In addition he or she does not need to choose cabinet members commanding the support of the legislation. By contrast, in parliamentarism, the executive branch is led by a council of ministers, headed by a Prime Minister, who are directly accountable to the legislature and often have their background in the legislature (regardless of whether it is called a "parliament", a "diet", a "chamber").
- As with the President's set term of office, the legislature also exists for a set term of office and cannot be dissolved ahead of schedule. By contrast, in parliamentary systems, the legislature can typically be dissolved at any stage during its term of office by the head of state, usually on the advice of either Prime Minister alone, by the Prime Minister and cabinet, or by the cabinet.
- In a presidential system, the president usually has special privileges in the enactment of legislation, namely the possession of a power of veto over legislation of bills, in some cases subject to the power of the legislature by weighed majority to override the veto. However, it is extremely rare for the president to have the power to directly propose laws, or cast a vote on legislation. The legislature and the president are thus expected to serve as a checks and balances on each other's powers.
- Presidential system presidents may also be given a great deal of constitutional authority in the exercise of the office of Commander in Chief, a constitutional title given to most presidents. In addition, the presidential power to receive ambassadors as head of state is usually interpreted as giving the president broad powers to conduct foreign policy.
The reality
In reality, elements of both systems overlap. Though a president in a presidential system does not have to choose a government answerable to the legislature, the legislature may have the right to scrutinise his or her appointments to high governmental office, with the right, on some occasions, to block an appointment. In the United States, many appointments must be confirmed by the Senate. By contrast, though answerable to parliament, a parliamentary system's cabinet may be able to make use of the parliamentary 'whip' (an obligation on party members in parliament to vote with their party) to control and dominate parliament, reducing its ability to control the government.
In the late nineteenth century, it was speculated that the United States Speaker of the House of Representatives would evolve into a quasi-prime minister, with the US system evolving into a form of parliamentarianism. However this did not happen. More recently, it has been suggested that the office of White House Chief of Staff, the President's chief aide, has become a de facto United States prime minister of sorts, with his dominance or weakness in the US governmental system depending on whether there is a "hands off" or "hands on" president. (Ronald Reagan was the former, Bill Clinton the latter). Reagan's Chiefs of Staff in many ways ran the day to day affairs of government, with the President standing back from intervention.
Some countries, such as France have similarly evolved to such a degree that they can no longer be accurately described as either presidential or parliamentary-style governments, and are instead grouped under the category of semi-presidential system.
See also
External links
- http://www.idea.int/publications/democracy_and_deep_rooted_conflict/ebook_chapter4_3.html
- http://www2.hawaii.edu/~fredr/pres.htm
- http://www.cebem.com/centdocum/documentos/d-parlamen.htm