Francesca Bavaro

Comparative Politics

Professor Jan Kubik

12 April 2011

Parliamentary vs. Presidential Systems of Government

Democratization has been going on for decades and is making its way into most countries around

the world. There are two main systems of government in which democracies work. A parliamentary

system of government is the system that most democracies have. The other is the presidential system of

government. The focus of this essay is on how these systems work in the United Kingdom’s government

and Mexico’s government. These two democracies are very different from one another with their own

advantages and disadvantages. Before we can understand how these systems of government work in

practice, we must first define them.

A main focus of any type of government is the ruler or ruling power. In order to understand how a

government runs we must first understand who rules it, and how do they do so. For a presidential system

type of government there are typically three branches of government, which in theory no one branch is

supposed to over power the other. We will soon find out that this is not always the calikse, and has not

been for Mexico; but let’s first discuss what the three branches are. The president is the sole ruler of the

executive branch, and is elected directly by the people. As president, his powers are two fold. He rules as

head of state and as head of government. (Reader 2010, page 226) His authority as the head of state is

symbolic or ceremonial. The head of state is a unifying symbol that brings the people of the country

together. Some skeptics do not see the necessity in having such a symbol. In my opinion however, it is

very necessary to have one unifying symbol because it gives the government greater legitimacy of rule. In

a presidential system there are a lot of government officials in charge, and all though they are all

supposed to serve the people of a country it works better in times of crisis and celebration to know whose

in charge or to look to someone to bring people together. The powers of head of state alone are not

strong enough to keep a strong legitimate presidency. Head of government is also a serious role this

aspect of the president’s power. Some may argue that it is even more important. Mexico has had a hard
time historically keeping the people’s faith of the president in head of state alone. During the 1980s

Mexico had faced some serious economic hardships, making it difficult for the new president to get the

Mexican people’s support.

(http://workmall.com/wfb2001/mexico/mexico_history_to_the_brink_and_back_1982_88.html). “Moreover,

and perhaps most critical, the Mexican people had begun to question and criticize the system…The

government in the PRI, de la Madrid included, believed that they could continue to hold power by keeping

the people well fed and reserving economic trends.”

(http://workmall.com/wfb2001/mexico/mexico_history_to_the_brink_and_back_1982_88.html) As head of

government he makes decisions for the government and on the behalf of the rest of the country. Powers

of the head of government/the president are commonly as follows: commander and chief of the military,

presides over the presidential cabinet, makes fast acting executive decisions that the legislatures or

courts can not make, and keeps the other branches of government in check, etc. But the powers of he

president are limited to prevent him from abuse of powers.

The president is the head ruler of the executive branch, but that is not the only branch of

government in this system. Presidential systems are composed of separation of powers which are kept

under control through a system of checks and balances. “Presidential system relates to the issue of

centralizations as well as to the issue of separation of powers; the division of powers among the

executive, legislative and judicial branches of the national government.” (http://books.google.com/books?

id=YSred4NyOKoC&pg=PA205&lpg=PA205&dq=judiciary+branch+in+presidentialism&source=bl&ots=lO

3bN22ZhU&sig=zy_PWdi0a2viVVBiP4otpaVB7lE&hl=en&ei=yxqdTcCRJMbFgAf6l92GBw&sa=X&oi=boo

k_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false) The purpose of this is to

make sure that no branch of government abuses its powers. The job of the judiciary branch is protecting

the constitution and interpreting the constitution along with the law. All of the branches are supposed to

impose checks on each other. The judiciary is supposed to enforce restrictions on each other by limiting

the powers of the president and congress when their actions supersede their powers. “The judiciary also

has played a limited role in restricting the power of the presidency…the judicial system also limit the

ability of the judiciary to restrain presidential action.” (http://books.google.com/books?

id=YSred4NyOKoC&pg=PA205&lpg=PA205&dq=judiciary+branch+in+presidentialism&source=bl&ots=lO
3bN22ZhU&sig=zy_PWdi0a2viVVBiP4otpaVB7lE&hl=en&ei=yxqdTcCRJMbFgAf6l92GBw&sa=X&oi=boo

k_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false) This is another flaw that

has shown in Mexico’s practice of the presidential system. The role of the judiciary does not play out as it

was planned by the constitutions, and the system of checks and balances is tipping in the favor of the

presidet

The legislative branch or congress in a presidential system is either bicameral unicameral. In

Mexico they use a bicameral system; it is known as the Congreso de la Unión which translates as

Congress of the Union. “The chambers are called the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies. The upper

chamber is the Senate (Cámara de Senadores or Senado). It comprises 128 seats, 96 members are

elected by direct popular vote for six-year terms; the other 32 seats are allocated based on proportional

representation.The lower house is the Chamber of Deputies (Cámara de Diputados). It has 500 seats,

300 members are elected by popular vote to three-year terms; the other 200 seats are allocated

according to proportional representation.” - (http://www.senado.gob.mx/ Senate

Website]<br/>[http://www.diputados.gob.mx/ Chamber of Deputies Website).

An advantage of the legislative branch is that it is opportunity for proportional representation of the

country. It is a way of making sure that the population is fairly represented in the government including the

minorities. “We need a strong, vigorous Legislative Branch, removed from the influence of the President,

capable of exercising through parliamentary control and its instruments a true counterweight to the

Executive Branch.” (http://info8.juridicas.unam.mx/cont/mlawr/3/arc/arc10.htm#VI ). Just like the judiciary

branch, the legislative one is subject to the same serious flaw. The executive/president has to much

power. Historically when one person has an excessive amount of power with in a country that person was

considered a dictator or a monarch, but Mexico is still considered a presidential system, which is a

common form of democracy. This is not just a concern for Mexico but ultimately for the process of

democraticization since there is a possibility that other countries trying to become democracies may

follow Mexico’s example of it.

A parliamentary system is set up very differently from a presidential one. Firstly the executive

branch is split, the head of state and head of government are separate from one another. In the United

Kingdom the head of state is the king and queen, the royal family. They are a unifying symbol that brings
the United Kingdom together. Historically they had legitimate ruling power, but now their place in

government is ceremonial if anything. The significance of keeping a royal family is the significance of the

United Kingdom’s pride in tradition. They are a country in which they hold high importance to things that

reflect strongly on their country’s identity, and the king and queen have always done that. Just because

they are no longer ran by feudalism does not mean that they no longer see value in keeping up with the

tradition. The head of government for the United Kingdom is the prime minister, and unlike a president he

is not directly voted by the people, but instead is chosen by the party voted into power. Parliamentary

systems are all about proportional representation. The system is set up so that the minorities do not slip

and fall through the cracks of democracy in which the majority often rules. The textbook defines a

parliamentary system of government as “a two step process. 1. The people elect the national legislature.

2.The national legislature (usually the lower house in bicameral legislatures) elects or approves the

government.” (Reader 2010, 226)And that is exactly what the United Kingdom does when choosing its

government. They identify closely with the prototype for a parliamentary system thus far.

There are some pros and cons to this system as well, and they are demonstrated in the United

Kingdom’s government. A lot of these advantages and disadvantages happen because of the formation of

coalitions. Coalitions happen in parliament house of commons. (The house of lords is the other branch of

parliament, but their role is traditional much like the king.) Members of parliament are all part of a political

parties. For a party strong mandate it needs to have over fifty percent of the votes. When this happens

things run smoothly, however, often the winner of the election wins by a plurality so in order to create that

mandate, parties have to create coalitions to maintain rule. “As it happens, the disadvantages of coalition

government are closely related to its advantages.” (Reader 2010, 226) Forming coalitions is good

because it gives the smaller parties a voice in parliament that they would not ordinarily have, but

sometimes it gives them to much of a voice. Since a smaller party is sharing power with a stronger one it

may get as much attention as the stronger one even though that is not what the public voted for. This

creates representation of the people that is not proportioned correctly or fairly. Also the two parties in a

coalition have to compromise for their ruling to be successful. This is good because not one party’s

agenda trumps other parties or the people‘s interests. It is a check with in the legislative branch on itself.

But similarly to the presidential system’s checks and balances it has the same problem because when
two parties can not reach a compromise there is a high potential for gridlock. The United Kingdom’s

parliament, along with other parliaments has the ability to adapt. The people in charge of government can

change quickly and often do. People are easily ruled into office, and if they are doing a bad job they can

be voted out or asked to resign.

Mexico has more flaws in its government then the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom follows

its archetype for democracy much more closely than Mexico follows its own. One may find themselves

asking if this means that a parliamentary system is better then a presidential one. This is a statement that

can not be defined or confirmed based solely off of what has been discussed in this essay. The only shred

of evidence presented thus far that supports that is that a parliamentary system is more common through

out the globe then a presidential one, which is not a very strong argument. It’s also unreasonable to say

that because this paper only discusses two of the many different countries that are ran by similar

systems, we didn’t even touch upon presidential parliamentary systems of government. We can, however

reflect upon why the United Kingdom seems to have a stronger government then Mexico, and there are

several reasons.

First of all, the United Kingdom’s parliamentary system has been in place much longer. Mexico’s

constitution was just implemented in 1917. (It is not even a centaury old!) There is a sense of stability due

to age. When something such as a type of government has been around for a while that means it works,

and the longer its been around the better. It does not necessarily mean that the government system is

good, it just means that it is strong and less likely to fall apart. Another reason why the United Kingdom

might work better then Mexico is because the United Kingdom was the first country to create a

parliamentary system of government where as Mexico adapted the idea from the United States. It only

makes sense that the creators of a form of government would know how to run it better then someone

who is trying to learn from them. When the United States created a presidential form of government they

had to think through all the variables, and realize what did and what does not work for it. Mexico did not

have that same opportunity. It is just like when one teaches something, and as they are teaching it they

are learning so they know it better than the person they are teaching it too.
Works cited

Textbook

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Mexico

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Mexico

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_government

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation_in_presidential_systems

http://books.google.com/books?

id=YSred4NyOKoC&pg=PA205&lpg=PA205&dq=judiciary+branch+in+presidentialism&source=bl&ots=lO

3bN22ZhU&sig=zy_PWdi0a2viVVBiP4otpaVB7lE&hl=en&ei=yxqdTcCRJMbFgAf6l92GBw&sa=X&oi=boo

k_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://workmall.com/wfb2001/mexico/mexico_history_to_the_brink_and_back_1982_88.html

http://info8.juridicas.unam.mx/cont/mlawr/3/arc/arc10.htm#VI