Parliamentary vs. Presidential
Presidential and parliamentary systems are the two most common forms of democracies throughout the world; though the term “democracy” is used to describe each nation’s distinct origin of civic rule, whether achieved through monarchy, regime change, or revolution. A comparative analysis between Parliamentary systems of government and that of a presidential system, reveals a disparate authority whereby the distribution of power is either centralized or divided. In a presidential system, as that of America’s Constitutional Republic, government power is dispersed through a system of checks and balances to allow a thriving, yet divided government, under the authority of the people’s representation. In a parliamentary system of government, power is concentrated and appropriated through a system of proportional representation; the party has the power of appointment in the legislative body, whereas a presidential system’s president is elected by the people indirectly through an Electoral College.
The [U.S.] Founding Fathers created an election process known as the electoral college that allows both a vote of Congress and the voice of the people to be factored into the election of the U.S. President. According to the National Archives, “the term ‘electoral college’ does not appear in the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment refer to “electors,” but not to the “electoral college,”…[t]he Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Your State has the same number of electors as it does Members in its Congressional delegation: one for each Member in the House of Representatives plus two Senators.” In a presidential system, there exist 435 districts, each with a single member representative voted by citizens residing within that district; these districts are redrawn every decade per the Reapportionment Act of 1929, (House). Each district’s single-member element represents the needs of the majority within that locality, allowing a diverse yet familiar authority to direct the endemic polity in each community. Many Americans might reject their own representative should an opposing partisanship be elected, however must submit to the utilitarianist declaration of each district, achieved through a representative democracy. Utilitarianism stands opposed by many Americans, as it requires the oppression of the minority, favoring the prosperity of the majority; conversely, each single-member district has adopted a utilitarian method of governance, placing the district’s majority over the needs of its minority. A Parliamentary government, by contrast, opposes utilitarianism, instead embracing populism. Under a populist government, as that of a Parliamentary system, any public issue will gain relevant footing in the nation’s political agenda, so long as there exists a need for public representation. This leads to divergent and often conflictive parliamentary constituencies though mirrors the civic diversity that resides in each [parliamentary] constituency.
The term “Parliament” is defined by the Oxford Dictionary of Politics as, “[a]n elected assembly, responsible for passing legislation and granting government the right to levy taxation;” while Black’s Law Dictionary declares it to be “[t]he supreme legislative body of some countries; esp. (cap.), in the United Kingdom, the national legislature consisting of the monarch, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons,” (Black’s Law, p. 584). Barron’s Law Dictionary similarly states Parliament to be “a legislative body. The term was first used to describe the legislative body of England, Scotland, and Ireland and still is used to describe that of the United Kingdom,” (Barron, p. 618); similarly, the Associated Press Stylebook depicts the term “Parliament” to be considered as a “legislative body.” The Oxford Dictionary of Law adds that in the UK, “[t]he life of a Parliament is divided into sessions, normally of one year each, which are ended when Parliament is prorogued (under the prerogative) by a royal commission. Each House divides a session into sittings, normally of a day’s duration, which end when a motion for adjournment is passed,” (Oxford, p. 1513). The Wolters Kluwer Bouvier Law Dictionary defines “Parliament” as “[t]he legislature of Great Britain, or of other ministerial states” (Bouvier, p. 419); while the Merriam Webster Dictionary considers the word “Parliament” as “a formal conference for the discussion of public affairs.” Historian J. Tyler Dickovick et al. write on the origin of Parliament that “the earliest legislatures were not truly representative in most cases. The Parliament that asserted its authority over King John of England with the drafting of the Magna Carta in 1215 were not elected ‘commoners’ but rather nobles in their own right,” (Dickovick, J.T. et al., p. 203). According to Historian Theodore F. T. Plucknett;
Feudal custom regulated the position of the Crown with respect to the great nobles and therefore supplied the place of a body of public law. The King’s Court, [Curia Regis;] therefore, is not merely the Anglo-Saxon consultative assembly, but also a body entrusted with the power of applying such constitutional law as then existed.” Plucknett adds that [c]enturies later Parliament will become an instrument, first in the hands of the lords and later of the commons, which can be turned against the King himself and his Council. But this is far in the future; Parliament was not intended to play that role when it first took rise, (Plucknett, T.F.T.).
Shown by these examples and from the many works of historians extensively familiar with the subject, both presidential and parliamentary systems of government, have had vastly different origins. Contemporary external observations can easily be distorted through an interpretive lens, as each system of government, both proportional and single-member district representation stands for the same principle; its own national defense and the general welfare of its citizens. The principal distinction between a presidential and parliamentary system of government is that each utilizes a different means to achieve the same resolve; liberty. But the origins of government continue to facilitate the condition of each nation’s body politic.
Parliament features a proportional representation system of government; this system is distinct from the presidential government system found in America, in many ways. A Presidential system utilizes a divided government, ensuring citizens a clear defense against tyranny through a system of checks and balances between the legislators and the head of state; while a parliamentary system’s fused power consolidates the legislative and the Prime Minister’s authority. Parliament’s polity falls under the authority of a King or Queen, a ceremonial role maintained under tradition. In a presidential system such as America, the President acts as the head of State, Chief Executive, and head of government, the power existing in the moral of the people; the American body politic. The House of Lords is the “Supreme Court” of Britain’s Parliament; according to Parliament “For centuries the House of Lords was the supreme court of appeal on points of law for the whole of the UK in civil cases and for England, Wales and Northern Ireland in criminal cases;” adding that as of 2009 “the judicial powers of the House of Lords transferred to the new and separate Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.”
Historic political analyst Alexis De Tocqueville (1805-1859), wrote of the American presidential system in 1835, comparing it to England’s Parliamentary system of government and France during its Second Republic following Napoleonic rule, wrote that “[t]he Anglo-Americans have retained the characteristics of judicial power which are common to all nations,” (Tocqueville, A. De, p. 72). Tocqueville’s book, “Democracy in America (1835-40)” features a firsthand comparison between each system of government: presidential, as that of antebellum America; parliamentary, as that of England , and presidential-slash-proportional representation, as that of France. Tocqueville wrote that;
In England the Parliament has an acknowledged right to modify the constitution; as, therefore, the constitution may undergo perpetual changes, it does not in reality exist; the Parliament is at once a legislative and a constituent assembly. The political theories of America are more simple and more rational. An American constitution is not supposed to be immutable as in France, nor is it susceptible of modification by the ordinary powers of society as in England. It constitutes a detached whole, which, as it represents the determination of the whole people, is no less binding on the legislator than on the private citizen, but which may be altered by the will of the people in predetermined cases, according to established rules. In America the constitution may therefore vary, but as long as it exists it is the origin of all authority, and the sole vehicle of the predominating force, (Tocqueville, A. De, p. 73-74).
Contemporary comparative politics reveal that the United States President has taken a similar ceremonial role, instead focusing on press conferences and cabinet organization. The President then disperses his authority granted by the public, into 435 agencies, alongside bureaucrats and panjandrums; hoping to rally up public appeal (Federal Register). In correlation with the modern ceremonial position held by the president of America, the British Parliament’s system relies on a network of 650 party-appointed representatives; these parties are voted on by citizens. Similar to the Executive Branch’s Cabinet under a presidential system; under proportional representation as exists in the British Parliament, citizens vote for the party that best represents their interest. These elected entities then determine who exactly is elected into power. Conversely, Parliamentary systems feature a proportional representation system; this gives every party a voice in government, including proponents of special interest minority politics. Hitler’s Nazi Party entered government through a system of proportional representation; Germany’s first Constitution (1918-1933) sought proportional representation. The German constitutional experiment ultimately allowed the Nazi party to form a dictatorship under proportional representation, inevitably revoking the constitution that initially provided them authority. Learning from this, America must ensure it does not follow a similar path and does not apply political labels to law; historically, persecution by ordinance has had disastrous consequences. And national security does not appropriate a sovereign immunity to the mandated adherence to the Constitution; specifically Article VI, (U.S. Const. art. VI. cl. 2).
In modern America, the U.S. government routinely overturn Constitutional order under the pretext of an expert opinion; subverting civic reverence for its authority and disrupting the guaranteed nature of a democratic Republic (U.S. Const. art. IV. § 4.). Proportional representation has seeped into the heads of the Executive Branch’s federal agencies, as the federal government aims to summon those seeking progressive revolution. Politicians and bureaucrats look to shift the blame from themselves to the system of Republican government that exists, citing the U.S. Constitution as a misguiding force. The beauty of the Constitution is the lack of acknowledgment of human rights, instead laying out the foundations of government; promising each state a Republican form of government. This does not indicate an allegiance to partisanship; instead, it displays an affinity for fellow man and a dissent from primordial tyranny.
The detriments of fused power as seen in Parliament, include that of unrestrained governance whereby citizens must ascribe to the limits of the provided liberties of the established body of government. The amplified voice given to minority politics and special interests is touted as utilitarianist illusory utopias; a pursuit strategically designed as perpetual expansion against individual sovereignty. Athenian democracy similarly frowned upon the private citizen, beseeching union lest succumbing to a decade of ostracization; comparatively Parliamentary systems, “Motion of No Confidence” whereby a majority can depose a Prime Minister (PM) of their authority, (Parliament). In British Parliament, this means 326+ votes against the PM to depose them of their authority, unlike that of a presidential system by which the President can be removed by impeachment; per Article II, Section 4 (U.S. Const. art. II, § 4). The U.S. Constitution declares that should the Executive Branch commit “Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” the sitting president will be subject to impeachment. Article I, Section 2.5 (U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 5) gives Congress, specifically the House of Representatives “the sole Power of Impeachment.” The Constitution defines “treason” in Article III, Section 3 in both the first and second clauses, (U.S. Const. art III, § 3, cl. 1-2).
Alternatively, there exist governments featuring a presidential-slash-proportional representation system (P/PR). These include Russia and France, who supplanted a monarchal king with a president, yet feature a parliamentary body, headed by a Prime Minister; Russia’s president is Vladimir Putin, and its Prime Minister is Mikhail Mishustin; whereas France’s president is Emmanuel Macron, and its Prime Minister is Élisabeth Borne. Under strict parliamentary systems, there exists no president, as the head of government is the Prime Minister, and the head of state is the nation’s King or Queen.
Conclusion
Fused power is centralized authority; a state removed from the public, offering comradery in communal compliance, despite any consideration of the overall health of the political body. Historically in nations that evolved from tyrannical oligarchies, parliament functions as a democracy, correlative of a republic. Under a divided government, the people are offered the greatest assurance against totalitarian intervention, minimizing the chance of placing a biased appeal on special interest minority politics. Parliament ensures against utilitarian doctrine, while a presidential system ensures the needs of the populist demand. Both offer inherent privileges and individual liberties, yet remain separated by the centuries of influence under different political pressures. In each system of government, the needs of the people must be represented; including the dissent against the oppressions each population has historically faced, observable in the variance of enumerated protections and established rights presented against both presidents and parliaments.
–September 7th, 2023
Bibliography
A Dictionary of Law (Oxford Quick Reference). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.
Archives. (Accessed on September 6th, 2023). What is the Electoral College? | National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/about.
Brown, Garrett W; McLean, Iain; McMillan, Alistair. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics and International Relations (Oxford Quick Reference) . OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.
FederalRegister. (Accessed on September 6th, 2023). Federal Register: Agencies. https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies
Gifis, Steven H. Dictionary of Legal Terms: Definitions and Explanations for Non-Lawyers. Barrons Educational Services. Kindle Edition.
History. (Accessed on September 6th, 2023). The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives. https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The-Permanent-Apportionment-Act-of-1929/.
LOC. (Accessed on September 7th, 2023). Introduction - French Revolution of 1848 and the Second Republic: Topics in Chronicling America - Research Guides at Library of Congress. https://guides.loc.gov/chronicling-america-french-revolution-1848.
Merriam Webster. (Accessed on September 7th, 2023). Parliament Definition & Meaning – https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parliament?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld
Parliament. (Accessed on September 6th, 2023). Motion of No Confidence - UK Parliament. https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/motion-of-no-confidence/?id=32625
Parliament. (Accessed on September 6th, 2023). Judicial Role - UK Parliament. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/houseoflords/judicialrole/
Plucknett, Theodore F. T. A Concise History of the Common Law. Liberty Fund Inc.. Kindle Edition.
Press, The Associated. The Associated Press Stylebook: 2022-2024 (p. 496). The Associated Press. Kindle Edition.
Tocqueville, Alexis De. Democracy in America, Volume I and II (Optimized for Kindle). Kindle Edition.