Presidential versus parliamentary democracy
Journal Information
Philippine Studies: Historical and Ethnographic Viewpoints is an internationally refereed
journal that publishes scholarly articles and other materials on the history of the Philippines
and its peoples, both in the homeland and overseas. It believes the past is illuminated by
historians as well as scholars from other disciplines; at the same time, it prefers
ethnographic approaches to the history of the present. It welcomes works that are
theoretically informed but not encumbered by jargon. It promotes a comparative and
transnational sensibility, and seeks to engage scholars who may not be specialists on the
Philippines. Founded in 1953 as Philippine Studies, the journal is published quarterly by the
Atone de Manila University through its School of Social Sciences.
Publisher Information
The School of Social Sciences is a constituent member of the Loyola Schools of the Ateneo
de Manila University. It houses the seven academic disciplines of Communication,
Economics, Education, History, Political Science, Psychology, and Sociology-Anthropology
as well as the five interdisciplinary programs of Chinese Studies, Development Studies,
European Studies, Japanese Studies, and Southeast Asian Studies. It is committed to equip
individuals and communities with perspectives and skills for local, national, and global
transformation. It pursues this mission through multidisciplinary teaching, research, creative
work, and outreach initiatives, prepares individuals to be competent, ethical, and responsive
to local and global social realities. It is guided by the Jesuit tradition of excellence, service,
and the promotion of justice.
American Democracy
America’s Founding Fathers invented a new system, one that was a hybrid of
the powers of the king and parliament: a relatively powerful chief executive
who was independent of the legislature, but nonetheless checked by it—a
president who had to work with the legislature, but who didn’t rely upon it to
get (or keep) his job. Like so many trade-offs, this compromise gave American
democracy the best or the worst of both worlds, depending on one’s point of
view. In deciding just how independent or how limited the chief executive
should be, the American founders were engaged in a debate that continues to
this day, about whether a democratic society is better off with a presidential or
a parliamentary form of government.
The Chief Executive
On the face of it, this difference between presidential and parliamentary
government is really very simple, or at least it seems that way at first. In a
presidential system, the chief executive is directly elected by the people, and,
for the duration of his or her term, governs more or less independently from
the legislature. In a parliamentary form of government, the chief executive—
the prime minister—isn’t directly elected by the people. Instead, the people
vote for members of a legislative body, the parliament, and parliament then
selects one of its own to head up the executive branch. Direct versus indirect
election of the chief executive is the core difference between presidential and
parliamentary forms of government.
Government Efficiency
Because the prime minister is a product of the legislature, he or she can
usually count on parliament’s support. If a prime minister didn’t have a
supportive base in parliament, he or she probably wouldn’t have been
appointed prime minister in the first place. In a presidential system, on the
other hand, all bets are off. The president’s path to power is independent of
the legislature, and as a result, there’s a higher likelihood that the president
and the legislature will be deeply at odds. The separation of powers that
characterizes the presidential system of government is both a valuable asset
and an existential danger. While checks and balances protect against tyranny
of the majority, they do so by slowing down the decision-making process,
making it harder for the government to pass laws. And this can make it difficult
for the government to do anything at all. Parliamentary democracy, on the
other hand, has the potential to be dangerously efficient. The nature of the
system is such that the prime minister represents a ruling coalition in
parliament. This effectively removes a crucial check on the prime minister’s
power, but it does make the passage of legislation easier.
In other words, presidential and parliamentary systems of government
represent two sides of that fundamental trade-off between government
efficiency and representation.
The Chief Executive and the Assembly
What’s important to remember is that it’s the method of selection, and the
interplay between the chief executive and the assembly, that really matters.
That’s what determines the strengths and the weaknesses that a country’s
political system is likely to have. In a parliamentary system of government,
there’s a good chance that the prime minister and parliament will be able to
work together. For one thing, the two institutions almost always start with at
least some kind of broad agreement. If they didn’t, that parliament wouldn’t
have picked that prime minister in the first place.
Who Holds Power?
In other words, built into a parliamentary system of government is the
likelihood that the prime minister will be from a political party that controls a
majority—or at least a dominant share—of parliamentary seats. And besides,
if the prime minister and parliament do find themselves at an impasse,
parliament can always dismiss the prime minister and replace her with
someone else.
In a presidential system, by contrast, the chief executive and the legislature
are just kind of stuck with each other. The relative immunity of the president
means that he can block legislative proposals with impunity. And the
legislature can block the president’s actions as well. This creates the potential
for a standoff—a standoff that’s only enhanced when the president and the
legislature represent different political parties or factions.
That’s the essence of checks and balances.