Parliamentary system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.(December 2007)
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

States currently utilizing parliamentary systems are denoted in red and orange—the
former being constitutional monarchies where authority is vested in a parliament, the
latter being parliamentary republics whose parliaments are effectively supreme over a
separate head of state. States denoted in green have the roles of head of state and head
of government in one office, similar to presidential systems, but this office is filled by
parliament's choice and elected separately.

A parliamentary system, also known as parliamentarianism (and parliamentarism

in U.S. English), is distinguished by the executive branch of government being
dependent on the direct or indirect support of the parliament, often expressed through
a vote of confidence. Hence, there is no clear-cut separation of powers between the
executive and legislative branches, leading to a differing set of checks and balances
compared to those found in a presidential republic. Parliamentary systems usually
have a clear differentiation between the head of government and the head of state,
with the head of government being the prime minister or premier, and the head of
state often being an elected (either popularly or through parliament) president or
hereditary monarch. Though in Parliamentary systems the prime minister and cabinet
will exercise executive power on a day-to-day basis, actual authority will usually be
bestowed in the head of state, giving them many codified or uncodified reserve
powers, providing some balance to these systems.

The term parliamentary system does not mean that a country is ruled by different
parties in coalition with each other. Such multi-party arrangements are usually the
product of an electoral system known as proportional representation. Parliamentary
countries that use "first past the post" voting usually have governments composed of
one party. However, parliamentary systems in continental Europe do use proportional
representation, and tend to produce election results in which no single party has a
majority of seats.

Parliamentarianism may also be for governance in local governments. An example is

the city of Oslo, which has an executive council as a part of the parliamentary system.
The council-manager system of municipal government used in some U.S. cities bears
many similarities to a parliamentary system.

Contents
[hide]

• 1 Types
 • 2 Advantages of a parliamentary system
• 3 Criticisms of parliamentarianism
• 4 Countries with a parliamentary system of government
o 4.1 Unicameral system
o 4.2 Bicameral system

• 5 Notes

[edit] Types
This section may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (November 2007)

There are broadly two forms of Parliamentary Democracies.

• Westminster System or Westminster Models tend to be found in

Commonwealth of Nations countries, although they are not universal within
nor exclusive to Commonwealth countries. These parliaments tend to have a
more adversarial style of debate and the plenary session of parliament is
relatively more important than committees. Some parliaments in this model
are elected using "First Past the Post" electoral systems, (e.g. Canada, India
and the UK), others using proportional representation, e.g. Ireland and New
Zealand. The Australian House of Representatives is elected using the
alternative or preferential vote while the Senate is elected using PRSTV
(proportional representation through the single transferable vote). However
even when proportional representation systems are used, the systems used tend
to allow the voter to vote for a named candidate rather than a party list. This
model does allow for a greater separation of powers than the Western
European Model, although the extent of the separation of powers is nowhere
near that of the presidential system of United States.

• Western European Parliamentary Model (e.g., Spain, Germany) tend to have a

more consensual debating system, and have semi-cyclical debating chambers.
Proportional representation systems are used, where there is more of a
tendency to use party list systems than the Westminster Model legislatures.
The committees of these Parliaments tend to be more important than the
plenary chamber. This model is sometimes called the West German Model
since its earliest exemplar in its final form was in the Bundestag of West
Germany (which became the Bundestag of Germany upon the absorption of
the GDR by the FRG).

There also exists a Hybrid Model, the semi-presidential system, drawing on both
presidential systems and parliamentary systems, for example the French Fifth
Republic. Much of Eastern Europe has adopted this model since the early 1990s.

Implementations of the parliamentary system can also differ on whether the

government needs the explicit approval of the parliament to form, rather than just the
absence of its disapproval, and under what conditions (if any) the government has the
right to dissolve the parliament.
[edit] Advantages of a parliamentary system
Some believe that it's easier to pass legislation within a parliamentary system. This is
because the executive branch is dependent upon the direct or indirect support of the
legislative branch and often includes members of the legislature. In a presidential
system, the executive is often chosen independently from the legislature. If the
executive and legislature in such a system include members entirely or predominantly
from different political parties, then stalemate can occur. Former US President Bill
Clinton often faced problems in this regard, since the Republicans controlled
Congress for much of his tenure. Presidents can also face problems from their own
parties, however, as former US President Jimmy Carter often did[citation needed].

In addition to quicker legislative action, Parliamentarianism has attractive features for

nations that are ethnically, racially, or ideologically divided. In a unipersonal
presidential system, all executive power is concentrated in the president. In a
parliamentary system, with a collegial executive, power is more divided. In the 1989
Lebanese Taif Agreement, in order to give Muslims greater political power, Lebanon
moved from a semi-presidential system with a strong president to a system more
structurally similar to a classical parliamentarianism. Iraq similarly disdained a
presidential system out of fears that such a system would be equivalent to Shiite
domination; Afghanistan's minorities refused to go along with a presidency as strong
as the Pashtuns desired.

It can also be argued that power is more evenly spread out in the power structure of
parliamentarianism. The premier seldom tends to have as high importance as a ruling
president, and there tends to be a higher focus on voting for a party and its political
ideas than voting for an actual person.

In The English Constitution, Walter Bagehot praised parliamentarianism for

producing serious debates, for allowing the change in power without an election, and
for allowing elections at any time. Bagehot considered the four-year election rule of
the United States to be unnatural.[citation needed]

There is also a body of scholarship, associated with Juan Linz, Fred Riggs, Bruce
Ackerman, and Robert Dahl that claims that parliamentarianism is less prone to
authoritarian collapse. These scholars point out that since World War II, two-thirds of
Third World countries establishing parliamentary governments successfully made the
transition to democracy. By contrast, no Third World presidential system successfully
made the transition to democracy without experiencing coups and other constitutional
breakdowns. As Bruce Ackerman says of the 30 countries to have experimented with
American checks and balances, “All of them, without exception, have succumbed to
the nightmare [of breakdown] one time or another, often repeatedly.”

A recent World Bank study found that parliamentary systems are associated with
lower corruption. [1]

[edit] Criticisms of parliamentarianism

One main criticism of many parliamentary systems is that the head of state is in
almost all cases not directly elected. In a presidential system, the president is usually
chosen directly by the electorate, or by a set of electors directly chosen by the people,
separate from the legislature. However, in a parliamentary system the prime minister
is elected by the legislature, often under the strong influence of the party leadership.
Thus, a party's candidate for the head of government is usually known before the
election, possibly making the election as much about the person as the party behind
him or her.

Another major criticism of the parliamentary system lies precisely in its purported
advantage: that there is no truly independent body to oppose and veto legislation
passed by the parliament, and therefore no substantial check on legislative power.
Conversely, because of the lack of inherent separation of powers, some believe that a
parliamentary system can place too much power in the executive entity, leading to the
feeling that the legislature or judiciary have little scope to administer checks or
balances on the executive. However, most parliamentary systems are bicameral, with
an upper house designed to check the power of the lower (from which the executive
comes).

Although it is possible to have a powerful prime minister, as Britain has, or even a

dominant party system, as Japan has, parliamentary systems are also sometimes
unstable. Critics point to Israel, Italy, India, the French Fourth Republic, and Weimar
Germany as examples of parliamentary systems where unstable coalitions, demanding
minority parties, votes of no confidence, and threats of such votes, make or have
made effective governance impossible. Defenders of parliamentarianism say that
parliamentary instability is the result of proportional representation, political culture,
and highly polarised electorates.

Former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi criticized the parliamentary system of newly-
democratic Iraq, saying that because of party-based voting "the vast majority of the
electorate based their choices on sectarian and ethnic affiliations, not on genuine
political platforms."[2]

Although Walter Bagehot praised parliamentarianism for allowing an election to take

place at any time, the lack of a definite election calendar can be abused. In some
systems, such as the British, a ruling party can schedule elections when it feels that it
is likely to do well, and so avoid elections at times of unpopularity. Thus, by wise
timing of elections, in a parliamentary system a party can extend its rule for longer
than is feasible in a functioning presidential system. In other systems, such as the
Dutch and the Belgian, the ruling party or coalition has some flexibility in
determining the election date.

Alexander Hamilton argued for elections at set intervals as a means of insulating the
government from the transient passions of the people, and thereby giving reason the
advantage over passion in the accountability of the government to the people.
(citation needed)

In systems where the prime minister is chosen from members of parliament, it

prevents people who cannot be elected to parliament from serving. For example,
suppose a talented politician from the majority party happens to reside in a district in
which another party is dominant and holds the seat. That politician is unlikely to be
elected to parliament, and therefore cannot become prime minister, even though that
politician may enjoy great support overall nationally. In particular, there have been
cases where a sitting prime minister has been ousted solely because they lost their
own parliamentary seat in an election. However, in practice, politicians do not
necessarily represent the electorate which they originated from, and in some cases
may live outside the electorate they represent. This allows promising politicians to be
allocated a "safe seat", regardless of their origins.

[edit] Countries with a parliamentary system of

government
[edit] Unicameral system

This table shows countries with parliament consisting of a single house.

Country Parliament

Albania Kuvendi

Bangladesh Jatiyo Sangshad

Bulgaria National Assembly

Burkina Faso National Assembly

Croatia Sabor

Denmark Folketing

Dominica House of Assembly

Estonia Riigikogu

Finland Eduskunta/Riksdag
Greece Hellenic Parliament

Hungary National Assembly

Iceland Althing

India Parliament/Rajya Sabha & Lok Sabha

Israel Knesset

Kurdistan Region Kurdistan National Assembly

Latvia Saeima

Lithuania Seimas

Luxembourg Chamber of Deputies

Malta House of Representatives

Moldova Parliament

Mongolia State Great Khural

Montenegro Parliament

New Zealand Parliament

Norway* Storting

Palestinian Authority Parliament

Papua New Guinea National Parliament

Portugal Assembly of the Republic

Republic of Macedonia Sobranie - Assembly

Saint Kitts and Nevis National Assembly

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines House of Assembly

Samoa Fono

Serbia National Assembly

Singapore Parliament

Slovakia National Council

Sri Lanka Parliament

Sweden Riksdag

Turkey Grand National Assembly

Ukraine Verhovna Rada

Vanuatu Parliament

• The Norwegian Parliament is divided in the Lagting and Odelsting in

legislative matters. This separation will be abolished with the next parliament
in 2009 due to a constitutional amendment.

[edit] Bicameral system

This table shows organisations and countries with parliament consisting of two
houses.

Organisation or
Parliament Upper chamber Lower chamber
Country

Australia Parliament Senate House of Representatives

Austria Parliament Federal Council National Council

Antigua and
Parliament Senate House of Representatives
Barbuda

The Bahamas Parliament Senate House of Assembly

Barbados Parliament Senate House of Assmebly

Belize National Assembly Senate House of Representatives

Chamber of
Belgium Federal Parliament Senate
Representatives

Parliament National Council National Assembly

Bhutan
(Chitshog)[3] (Gyalyong Tshogde) (Gyalyong Tshogdu)

Canada Parliament Senate House of Commons

Czech Republic Parliament Senate Chamber of Deputies

Federal
House of People's
Ethiopia Parliamentary House of Federation
Representatives
Assembly

European Union Council of the European Parliament

 European Union

Bundesrat (Federal
Germany Bundestag (Federal Diet)
Council)

Grenada Parliament Senate House of Representatives

Rajya Sabha Lok Sabha (House of

India Parliament (Sansad)
(Council of States) People)

Ireland Oireachtas Seanad Éireann Dáil Éireann

Council of
Iraq National Assembly Council of Union [4]
Representatives

Senate of the
Italy Parliament Chamber of Deputies
Republic

Jamaica Parliament Senate House of Representatives

House of
Japan Diet House of Representatives
Councillors

Dewan Negara Dewan Rakyat (House of

Malaysia Parliament
(Senate) Representatives)

The Netherlands States-General Eerste Kamer Tweede Kamer

Pakistan Majlis-e-Shoora Senate National Assembly

Poland Parliament Senate Sejm

Romania Parliament Senate Chamber of Deputies

Saint Lucia Parliament Senate House of Assembly

Slovenia Parliament National Council National Assembly

National Council of
South Africa Parliament National Assembly
Provinces

Spain Cortes Generales Senate Congress of Deputies

Switzerland Federal Assembly Council of States National Council

National Assembly
Thailand [5] Senate House of Representatives

Trinidad and
Parliament Senate House of Representatives
Tobago

United Kingdom Parliament House of Lords House of Commons

[edit] Notes