Presidential vs Parliamentary

As part of my preparations for the examinations 'round the corner, I thought about Presidential & Parliamentary governments. I would argue FOR a presidential form of governance.

I shall attempt to demonstrate the superiority of a presidential government by exploring the following: robustness, efficiency, and representation.

A presidential government is more robust as compared to a parliamentary government because it is founded and based on a written document - the constitution. Both forms of governments have mechanisms of checks and balances. The presidential form achieves this by establishing itself strictly on the doctrines of separation of power. The legislature and executive are separate sectors in the government and no one personnel can be a part of both at the same time. This helps to safeguard individual rights and liberties because a bill has to be approved by assemblies with diverse viewpoints before being passed as a law. An example would include the United States of America, where the President, Supreme Court and Congress are distinct entities which counterbalances each others' power. The parliamentary government has its mechanism of checks and balances too. The cabinet government is answerable to the executive and legislature. This assembly can cast a vote of no confidence against the cabinet if they fail to reach expectations. However, I would argue that the parliamentary government is susceptible to tyranny of a few. If an authoritarian party takes over the majority of parliament, there would be no mechanisms to keep them under check.

Moving on, a proponent of a parliamentary government would highlight the relative inefficiency of a presidential system. Due to the structural separation of power discussed in the previous point, the presidential system is inherently less efficient compared to the parliamentary system. To quote an example, we can take a look at the law-making process in the USA. The Congress has the ability to make laws. The President reserves his right to disagree and veto it. However, the Congress, can in turn, override this veto with two-thirds majority in both houses. Proponents of a parliamentary government would go on to argue that this process takes too long, especially in times of crisis when decisive leadership is required to manage disasters and curb losses. However, I would point out that crises do not occur as frequently as mundane affairs. Given the relative higher frequency of everyday affairs, it is wiser to deliberate over issues to ensure that all aspects of it are attended to, and all possible solutions are considered. I would go on to argue that efficiency does not mean effectiveness. A parliamentary government may pass laws and implement policies efficiently, but that does not guarantee the quality of the policies.

Finally, I would argue that the presidential system allows better representation of the people in the government. In the Westminister-style of parliamentary systems, representatives are elected to exercise their judgement and wisdom to make decisions for their constituents. However, in a presidential system, like the USA, the House of Representatives in the Congress is required to represent the people according to population sizes. (*ARGH! I can't seem to reconcile this point in my head. %^&$*#)

In conclusion, I would like to note that there are both parliamentary and presidential governments in our world today. Undeniably, the demographic make-up of the region is influential to the success of each system. However, disregarding the local context and other historical background (e.g. colonialisation), I would argue that the presidential system is preferable over the parliamentary system, as demonstrated in its superior robustness, efficiency, and representation.