Presidential_V._Parlaimentary

Presidential v. Parliamentary System Katie Ardiff Walter Bagehot, in writing about the unwritten English Constitution, compares its parliamentary system to the presidential system of the United States in order to demonstrate its supremacy through comparison. He compares several different aspects of each system, including citizen participation, efficiency, accountability and representation. His arguments, both in their details and their fundamental premises, contain errors and misrepresent several facts and ideas. Because of these errors and through my own understanding of the presidential system, I am inclined to disagree with Bagehot’s argument. Bagehot first criticizes the disconnect between the executive and legislative branch in a presidential system. He points out that in order to get legislation passed, a president’s request must be sent through a complicated network on congress officials. However, this circumstance is justified through the separation of powers, which discourages the president from being the source of legislation. He further criticizes the tension between the executive and legislative branch. In a parliamentary system, the prime minister has the power to compel legislation through threat of cabinet resignation or dissolution. This action, however, goes against the founding principles in the United States Constitution, which was written with the idea that no branch would have undue power over the others. In a presidential system, if the president had the power to control the election cycle and meetings of congress, his influence would be almost infinite. In short, tension is intentionally inherent in the presidential system because it balances the power and creates a competitive environment for competent legislation. A third criticism Bagehot explains is the citizen apathy in the United States. He attributes this to a lack of a “crisis” feeling in government, or a feeling that one cannot influence government’s actions. However, he fails to effectively explain how this feeling does not exist in a parliamentary system. He contends that issues debated “out of doors” are impacted by the people, who provide the facts and arguments, and that Americans only give their opinion while voting. However, he does not consider American special interest groups or lobbyists that influence government decisions, or why the parliamentary system creates a better environment for participation. His “cabinet” argument also falls flat, because the minority party of a presidential system functions in a similar way by providing an opposing standpoint that the people may or may not choose to support. A further point he argues is that the selection of the executive in parliamentary system is superior to that of a presidential system. He believes the Electoral College to be an inferior body, because the electors who are supposed to make informed decisions instead vote for the majority candidate for their state. This tendency then represents the will of the people and not reasoned decisions of a few “chosen people.” He then argues that in a parliamentary system, the executive is ideally chosen by a House of Commons that represents the different interests and ideas in the nation. Although he criticizes the process of the electoral system in relation to its original intent, the end result, an executive who represents the will of the nation as a whole, is the outcome with both presidential and an ideal parliamentary process. Bagehot explains several other criticisms of the presidential system, with a similar disregard for the original intent for these “problems” or how they may in fact add depth to the system.