Parliamentary vs Presidential Form of Government

[Azeem]

Something that has been being debated here for some time now. Various country's have different reasons to opt for one. 

Which one do you think is better for your country and in general has more pros than cons. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Parliament has more political accountability imo, so that’s better for me

[Azeem]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Parliament has more political accountability imo, so that’s better for me

The other side of the picture especially in third world countries is where you have corrupt families ruling party politics is that they use this power of accountability to disturb matters of governance for the PM even if he is doing good for the country like doing crackdowns on corruption etc 

So in third world country's I'd say a Presidential government where the elected head has more power but with a solid step by step method of impeachment would work better. 

[Inverted]

I think it makes sense that the executive and the legislature should be aligned. The division of President and Congress in America for example makes sense from the point of view of enlightenment political theory, but it's just a mess in modern practice. It works much better when the leader of the country needs to have the support of the majority of the representatives elected by the people at any given time. I think in principle at least Britain has the right idea that, in a representative democracy, the collective decisions of the people's representatives should be the supreme power. 

The British parliamentary system has had a huge issue with the executive taking on disproportionate power, but in the current era of weak party discipline and weak executive leadership we're actually kinda seeing a turn to Parliament having more of a voice. Of course at the moment it's causing chaos because we're still working it out after being so used to the Prime Minister getting his way all the time, but in future I think it would be good to see Parliament consistently doing more than just blindly supporting the government. 

I think that, when implemented well, Parliamentarism is a more organic system and is much better for modern government. Presidential systems are overly concerned with formalism and outdated liberal constitutional theory, and are just designed to fall into deadlock. 

[AMG]

All I want is Mein Führer to tell me what to do. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Harry]

Parliament. But I think politicians and politics on the whole is struggling to adapt to the age of information, captured video and social media, and in dealing with a society with a much more throw away mentality that applies not just to material but to people. 

In Australia our PM office is a revolving door and the head has changed outside of an election for the fourth time in the last 8 years. It's a reasonably stable democracy but this is hardly a beacon of success based on current performance...

[Azeem]

21 minutes ago, Harry said:

Parliament. But I think politicians and politics on the whole is struggling to adapt to the age of information, captured video and social media, and in dealing with a society with a much more throw away mentality that applies not just to material but to people. 

 

Agreed current forms of government available to us are inadequate for the modern world.

Prevalent forms of government such as democracy, monarchy, theocracy, dictatorship, communism, socialism, etc have all failed us. They all seem not to be adequately equiped to counter the fundamental greed of humans, the massive changes that technology has brought to the world, and the fact that the world is now more & more interlinked and one. We need a new system with a new outlook. The question is what is this new system?

I believe one of the banes of the current governmental systems are the political parties. If somehow the political parties could be taken out of the equation and all elections done based on individual merits then the whole landscape would change. 

The assemblies would be made up of individuals or independents who then elect from within themselves prime ministers & cabinets. Every motion & resolution would be voted on the basis of individual conscious rather than the party whip.

[nudge]

In theory, direct democracy. In practice, Swiss-style semi-direct democracy. 

[Harry]

@Azeem I'm not sure parties are the issue. Ultimately any group of people can't all singularly agree on all things so you will have power struggles, and in an increasingly polarised society those fringe elements within parties become noisier and gain in profile whilst also destabilising government and creating dysfunction.

 

[Azeem]

18 minutes ago, Harry said:

@Azeem I'm not sure parties are the issue. Ultimately any group of people can't all singularly agree on all things

I'm not talking about that its impossible 

In party politics around the world each candidate spents $$$ on its election campaign where do they get all this funding from ? either they must be from a rich elite background to fund themselves or the financers of the party support them . If they get in power they will form policies according to their financier's wish because that's why they support them in the first place. 

In party politics no person hold a chance in hell to rise from the ashes of the voter constituencies to become the head of the state without any support from the main parties.