1 Presidential and parliamentary system of government: which system is preferable?

Presidential and parliamentary form of

government: which system is better for the
constitutional structure of the Maldives?

Fathimath Salinee
2 Presidential and parliamentary system of government: which system is preferable?

Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 3

Distinctive features of presidential and parliamentary system ............................................................... 4

Parliamentary form of government....................................................................................................... 4

Presidential form of government ........................................................................................................... 5

Significant causal effects of the characteristics ........................................................................................ 6

Is presidential system better for the constitution of the Maldives? ........................................................ 8

Fathimath Salinee
3 Presidential and parliamentary system of government: which system is preferable?

Introduction

Around the time when most of the world’s monarchial governments and colonial systems
exhausted, the spark of democratic movement spread across the globe creating room for new
governmental systems. The central idea of this new movement was to provide the citizens with a
government which serves the interests of the citizens instead of the interests of the kings and rulers.
A system where the people’s representatives are given the authority to decide for the nation’s
betterment became favorable, forming new republics, making citizen participation a vital organ of
this system. As a matter of fact, this new perceived structure of government gave rise to questions
like which governmental structure best serves justice to the implication of a good democracy. For
decades, nations are working towards systematic institutional governments most arguably
parliamentary and presidential form of government. Choosing any of these constitutional methods
shapes the entire countries political system and the governance of the nation at whole. The two
systems are built in very fine grounds in a way that molds the government into the ethics of
democracy, however each system with its advantages comes with their own drawbacks making it
one of the most debated topics in the world of political science. There are many distinctive features
of these two governmental systems which make it contradictory to one another. The most
significant features that outline the difference between these two systems are the structure of the
government, the leadership and the electoral system of each respectively. These distinctive features
have been a focus of discussion for decades. However, along with the differences there are features
such as being democratic, republics, and both requiring leaders to run the government are mutual
to both the systems.

As this century old debate persists to exist and most likely will continue to exist as the need for
good governance under a democratic system will remain a primary concern of nations, it is
important to find out the significant characteristics of the constitutional structures along with its
advantages and disadvantages in order to come down to a fair conclusion whether or not either of
the systems outweigh the other. Hence, this essay will be focusing on the characteristics of these
systems and how the systems are distinct from one another. Further, it will be focusing on the
possible causal effects of adopting these constitutional structures in order to figure which of the
system are consequently close to democracy. This essay will be summed up with a personal view

Fathimath Salinee
4 Presidential and parliamentary system of government: which system is preferable?

on the highly debated question whether parliamentary system is a better substitute to switch from
a presidential form of government for the constitutional structure of the Maldives.

Distinctive features of presidential and parliamentary system

The highest authority in a democratic government is vested on the citizens. Therefore, everything
about the governmental system is shaped on this ground. Presidential and parliamentary system
are molds of democracy and the features that shape the systems also comes under the framework
of democracy. What striking about both the systems is the distinguishable differences in the
carrying out of democracy. The structure of the government, leadership in the system, and the
method of election of the leaders are features that stand out in both democratic forms.

Parliamentary form of government

In modern literature parliamentary system is seen as a system that is more centralized in terms of
policy-making process, endorsing political interests of the parties with majority support from the
people, and by its nature has a more centralized administrative structure. Parliamentary system has
a distinctive structure of government where the executive power and the legislature are fused
together in a manner that conjoins exercises of the two powers. The executive from the branches
of the government consisting of the prime minister and his/her cabinet of ministers is a part of the
legislature and takes part hand in hand in the works of the legislature. For instance, the executive
is actively involved in the enactment of law as most of the bills presented to the parliament is most
likely from the cabinet. However, there is a degree of limitation on their actions as they are
constantly subjected to parliamentary scrutiny. There is a significant influence the fusion of powers
has on the electoral system. The election of the head of government who is referred to as the prime
minister is carried out through the legislature. The future of the executive branch is decided by the
political parties who win the majority of the parliament, or in cases where a strong majority is not
favored a coalition of parties are formed to appoint the leaders for the executive branch. Citizen
participation comes into picture when electing members to the parliament and if the majority of
the public shows interests in bringing someone to the power of the head of government, in this
case the prime minister, the public can indirectly give him the majority support through the
political party he comes from. In simple terms, there are no independent elections for the executive

Fathimath Salinee
5 Presidential and parliamentary system of government: which system is preferable?

and the parliament, giving the legislature a legitimate supremacy in terms of the election of the
executive officials. The administrative structure of the governmental institutions is central to the
parliament and the powers of the executive are derived from the parliament. For a number of
reasons, the parliament can decide the fate of the prime minister and the executive officials. The
head of the government must have the confidence of the majority in the legislature between
elections. There are no fixed terms of office for the executive officials and the prime minister.
However, the prolongation of their term in office only depends on the confidence of the parliament.
Members of the majority party can vote no confidence of the head of the government and the
executive officials, and in some cases, they can be removed from authority when the coalition of
the parties through which the executive officials came to power dissolves. In this way, the
parliament has the authority to elect and take responsibility of the leaders and the actions of the
executive branch is answerable to the legislature.

Presidential form of government

Presidential systems have characteristics that are very much contradictory to that of a
parliamentary system. The main visible differences are the notions where the structure of the
government, and the independence of leadership of government, and the electoral form of
leadership are concerned. The significance of this system is mostly stressed on the characteristic
of separation of powers it claim to possess. This lays the general conception of legislative and the
executive branch as being free from any external pressure or influence from either of the
institutions in the policy making process. Unlike in the parliamentary system, the election of the
head of the government who is known as the president, and the parliamentary members for the
legislature are carried out independently because the two institutions are separate entities. By
contrast to the parliamentary system where the executive officials can be replaced according to the
will of the majority of the parliament, the head of government in this system is not subject to a
formal vote of confidence by elected representatives of the people in parliament therefore,
president cannot be removed from authority by a decision of the legislature. The term of office is
fixed for a specific time period and will not be questioned between elections unless in rare
circumstances of misconduct by the president. In such cases, the head of state will be subjected to
an impeachment by the majority of votes from the legislature. Impeachment of the president will
only occur in circumstances where the questionable action of the president actually has a weightage

Fathimath Salinee
6 Presidential and parliamentary system of government: which system is preferable?

in the eyes of the government and mere arguments between parliamentary members with
conflicting political backgrounds will not impose an impeachment on the president. The president
exercises significant constitutional powers and is generally in full control of the composition of
his cabinet and administration due to the democratic legitimacy it enjoys from the separation of
powers. Consequently, this independence of the executive from the legislature can open doors for
different political parties with conflicting ideas to operate either of the institutions. In practice,
situations like legislature composing majority of representatives from the opponent party whereas
president being from the political party that voters support are highly conceivable in presidential
form. Endowing the executive with such exceptional powers is perceived as something that fosters
a strong and stable executive that has the capacity to oppose to the legislature if it endorses partisan
interests instead of public interests through its power to veto the legislature. The presidential
system enjoys the separation of powers to ensure that the institutions does not go beyond the
limitations of powers they are entrusted with in the exercise of policy making. This is to reduce
any chances of abuse of powers through interference in the work of the opposite institutions thus
preventing tyranny between the functions as well as provide one another with the ability to check
and balance the powers of each institution in order to make sure none of the institutions become
superior over the other.

Significant causal effects of the characteristics

The distinctive characteristics of both the systems of government is fashioned in a way that can
help to maintain good governance which lead to the perceived ideal democratic system. Each
system owns unique strategies of carrying out its function to achieve the goal. The constitutional
differences between the presidential and parliamentary system lays down the framework for the
government to shape and carry the entire government. The causal effects of such systems will have
inevitable impacts on the development and advancement of the nation for the better or sometimes
for the worse. Therefore, it is important to examine the effects of features like
centralized/decentralized system of governance, separation or fusion of the governmental powers,
the degree of involvement of the multi-party system in the governance, the electoral forms
distinctive to each constitutional regime. This section will focus to underscore some of the features
distingue to the systems and the possible consequences of these features.

Fathimath Salinee
7 Presidential and parliamentary system of government: which system is preferable?

The power that the executive branch share is of significant concern to both the systems. In the
presidentialism there is a more legitimate executive branch with independent power, allowed to
take form as a free-floating system, therefore braces diffusion of powers, and fragmentation of
politics. Parliamentary system strongly contrasts to such high number of powers vested on the
executive institution. It is seen as a limitation to state capacity and government stability. Therefore,
parliamentarism prizes to the unification of the powers, a more institutionalized and centralized
form of government where the legislature is perceived as the legitimate institution and the
executive will be a dependent organ to the legislature. These unique approaches are consequent to
a number of occurrences. In presidentialism, due to the decentralization of the institutions it is
possible for different political parties to get the majority of leadership in different institutions
providing for the rival parties to coexist in the governance of policy making. Consequently,
weakening the party cohesion making it difficult to move forward with the policy making process.
However, party coherence does not necessarily lead to good governance, as some politicians might
use the power, they get from their political party to serve their narrow interests and this is likely to
deviate the system from serving the general interests of its people.

There is a striking difference in the way elections are carried out in these systems. Presidentialism
fosters a more liberal approach in positioning the executive and the legislative branch. Independent
votes are taken for the appointment of the president and the members of the parliament and the
members. Whereas the parliamentarism takes a unified approach in electing the head of
government and members of the legislature. Direct election of the president is claimed to be
leading towards a greater accountability of the institutions in a more localized fashion. The
representatives of the voters are more likely to be accountable to the voters in presidentialism, as
the people appointed to different institutions with different political backgrounds will not have an
influence on their representation of the voters. By contrast, in parliamentarism there is no direct
accountability between the representatives and the voters. The majority political party will be
accountable to the voters in this system. This may create barriers between the elected head of
government in this case prime minister and the voters as prime minister will be dependent on the
confidence of the party or the coalition parties. The governance in presidentialism is maintained
through separation of powers. The diffusion of the powers to independent and free-floating bodies
renders equal rights and powers on each of the separate institutions without making it more or less

Fathimath Salinee
8 Presidential and parliamentary system of government: which system is preferable?

than that of the other. This helps each institution to watch over the actions of the other and hold
them accountable if the exercising of the powers goes beyond the limits of power they have been
vested with, and if necessary, stop the works of the institutions if they go beyond the limits. This
system of governance fosters consistent accountability within different independent bodies hence
to ensure there are no abuse of powers.

The term of office for the parliamentarism is very flexible. The prime minister can stay in his
position for as long as he has the confidence of his political party or the coalition party who elected
him to the position. There sitting is uncertain for the prime minister, cause the parliament has the
power to vote him out at any time the parliament wills. To some extent this is beneficial, as it can
give certainty to the stability of the government. If the elected person keeps changing his polices
according to the changing circumstances his credibility would certainly be under question and
these questions would be of concern to the strength and stability of governmental policies. The
presidentialism highly contrasts to this system as it has a very rigid electoral system. The term of
office of the president is fixed for a certain period of time. It is near to impossible to remove the
sitting president between elections as it has to under-go a complicated process of impeachment to
vote the president out. This feature is more often associated with short-term stability, however,
this in turn can have positive impacts, as minor conflicts and disagreements between the
parliamentary members and the president cannot remove the president from the position, thus the
chances of undue influence from other institutions will be minimized.

Is presidential system better for the constitution of the Maldives?

In accordance with the constitution of the Maldives, which is the supreme law of the nation, the
Maldives exercises a democratic republic presidential system of government ever since its
transition from a sultanate in 20th century. Since then, different occasions emerged questions
whether a conversion to a parliamentary system would be more beneficial to the governance of the
nation. To this date it has been a topic of debate for people with concerns about the future of the
government. Considering the differences of these two distinctive state governing forms of
democracy, this part of the essay will be stressing on the mostly questioned notions of a

Fathimath Salinee
9 Presidential and parliamentary system of government: which system is preferable?

presidential system to determine if it is better for the Maldives to maintain its presidential
constitutional nature.

There are a couple of criticisms subjected to presidentialism with regards to its governance and
the impact it has on the structure of the political atmosphere of a nation. Arguments are mostly
stressed on the notion of its most unique features like separation of power of governmental
institutions. Parliamentary critiques argue that “the divided system of separated powers leads to a
condition of stalement whenever important and difficult issues are involved, the president faces
serious difficulties in decision-making because of the possibility of congressional opposition, the
system lacks the ability to form a government that will promote unity between the legislative and
the executive branches in a manner of parliamentary system” (Thomas O, 1993). Surprisingly,
these theoretical debates have been used as a weapon against presidentialism for centuries,
regardless of the fact that political atmosphere can change over time and any political system can
improvise and adopt new alternatives to blend in with the needs of a good governance along with
the changing atmosphere. Surely, with any system of government there would be inconveniences
to some degree but if the positives outweigh the inconveniences, then it would not be fair to
conclude the debate focusing only on the negative side.

In fact, adoption of separated power of institutions in presidentialism serves just about right for a
good democratic nation, considering the vast impact the system has on the shaping of the entire
nation. Presidentialism have a firm baseline provided for adopting such complex features of
national governance. The main objectives of diffusion of powers throughout the governmental
bodies, though requires a complex process, is to provide a government of capacity to be held
accountable for its actions. Different views from different standpoints and from different legitimate
institutions could be used, contested against and negotiated to come down to a decision. The
policies that come about as a product of such constructive and highly debated on topics, from
independent institutions which are not imposed any undue influence would certainly omit or at
least reduce chances of implementation of impulsively or recklessly developed policies.
Presidentialism embraces pluralism of the institutions welcoming great diversity of perspectives
from individual authorities which are free from influences from the political parties as well as the
governmental state. Representatives of the people are given independence to a point they can

Fathimath Salinee
10 Presidential and parliamentary system of government: which system is preferable?

impose veto powers onto legislations that are outright against public interests. The system ensures
that the voices of the minority is heard without exceptions. Bringing these aspects into
consideration, without over-looking the possible drawbacks, I believe that it would be fair to
conclude that it would be beneficial for the nation to retain the already existing presidential form
of government, giving that, the drawbacks from presidentialism do not come as near to the possible
positive outcomes of this system collectively. However, before we expect dramatic changes to the
governance of the nation through this system, it must be borne in mind that a constitutional
structure of government cannot alone move the government forward, there is going to be other
political influences which have a hug impact on the governance of a nation.

Fathimath Salinee
11 Presidential and parliamentary system of government: which system is preferable?

Reference
Horowitz, Donald L. (1990). Presidents vs. Parliaments. Comparing democratic systems. Journal of
democracy. 1(4).

Gerring, J., Thacker, Strom C., Moreno, C. (n.d). Are parliamentary systems better? Boston University.
Boston.

Linz, Juan J. (1985). Democracy: Presidencial or Parliamentary Does it make a differene? Available from:
https://is.gd/BicfCX

Terry, Moe M., Caldwell, M. (2014). The institutional foundations of democratic government: A
comparison of presidential and parliamentary systems. Journal of Institutional Theoretical Economics.
pp.171-195

Sargentich, Thomas O. (1993). The Presidential and Parliamentary Models of National Government.
American University International Law. 2/3(8). pp. 579-592.

Fathimath Salinee