Está en la página 1de 3

One of the commonly attributed advantages to parliamentary systems is that it’s faster and easier to pass legislation.

This is because the executive branch is dependent upon the direct or indirect support of the legislative branch and often includes members of the legislature. Thus, this would amount to the executive (as the majority party or coalition of parties in the legislature) possessing more votes in order to pass legislation. In a presidential system, the executive is often chosen independently from the legislature. If the executive and legislature in such a system include members entirely or predominantly from different political parties, then stalemate can occur. Accordingly, the executive within a presidential system might not be able to properly implement his or her platform/manifesto. Evidently, an executive in any system (be it parliamentary, presidential or semi-presidential) is chiefly voted into office on the basis of his or her party’s platform/manifesto. It could be said then that the will of the people is more easily instituted within a parliamentary system. In addition to quicken legislative action, Parliamentarianism has attractive features for nations that are ethnically, racially, or ideologically divided. In a uni-personal presidential system, all executive power is concentrated in the president. In a parliamentary system, with a collegial executive, power is more divided. It can also be argued that power is more evenly spread out in the power structure of parliamentarianism. The prime minister seldom tends to have as high importance as a ruling president, and there tends to be a higher focus on voting for a party and its political ideas than voting for an actual person. Parliamentarianism has been praised for producing serious debates, for allowing the change in power without an election, and for allowing elections at any time The four-year election rule of the United States to be by some to be unnatural. There is also a body of scholarship, associated with Juan Linz, Fred Riggs, Bruce Ackerman, and Robert Dahl that claims that parliamentarianism is less prone to authoritarian collapse. These scholars point out that since World War II, two-thirds of Third World countries establishing parliamentary governments successfully made the transition to democracy. By contrast, no Third World presidential system successfully made the transition to democracy without experiencing coups and other constitutional breakdowns.

Criticisms of parliamentarianism
One main criticism and benefits of many parliamentary systems is that the head of government is in almost all cases not directly elected. In a presidential system, the president is usually chosen directly by the electorate, or by a set of electors directly chosen by the people, separate from the legislature. However, in a parliamentary system the prime minister is elected by the legislature, often under the strong influence of the party leadership. Thus, a party’s candidate for the head of government is usually known before the election, possibly making the election as much about the person as the party behind him or her. Another major criticism of the parliamentary system lies precisely in its purported advantage: that there is no truly independent body to oppose and veto legislation passed by the parliament, and

or even a dominant party system. parliamentary systems are also sometimes unstable. because of the lack of inherent separation of powers. flexibility in the timing of parliamentary elections avoids having periods of legislative gridlock that can occur in a fixed period presidential system. demanding minority parties. which is generally non-executive and nonpartisan. and threats of such votes. leading to the feeling that the legislature or judiciary have little scope to administer checks or balances on the executive. with an upper house designed to check the power of the lower (from which the executive comes). In parliamentary systems. as Britain has. Conversely. The problem is not the system of government that the Philippines has. Although parliamentarianism has been praised for allowing an election to take place at any time. make or have made effective governance impossible. such as the Dutch and the Belgian. Thus. This problem can be alleviated somewhat by setting fixed dates for parliamentary elections. Promising politicians in parliamentary systems likewise are normally preselected for safe seats – ones that are unlikely to be lost at the next election – which allows them to focus instead on their political career. the ruling party or coalition has some flexibility in determining the election date. and Weimar Germany as examples of parliamentary systems where unstable coalitions. a ruling party can schedule elections when it feels that it is likely to do well. However. as is the case in several of Australia’s state parliaments. Supporters of parliamentarianism can respond by saying that as members of parliament. Conversely. The Philippine system of government was exactly patterned after that of the American political . by wise timing of elections. as Japan has. Critics point to Israel. some believe that a parliamentary system can place too much power in the executive entity. and so avoid elections at times of unpopularity. Italy. the role of the statesman who represents the country as a whole goes to the separate position of head of state.therefore no substantial check on legislative power (see tyranny of the majority). the French Fourth Republic. and highly polarized electorates. It has been argued that elections at set intervals are a means of insulating the government from the transient passions of the people. in a parliamentary system a party can extend its rule for longer than is feasible in a functioning presidential system. votes of no confidence. political culture. even though they may still be popular nationally. parliamentary systems may be bicameral. Additionally. NEXT No. Although it is possible to have a powerful prime minister. Defenders of parliamentarianism say that parliamentary instability is the result of proportional representation. but the politicians who occupy positions in the government. It is because of all politicians' lack of accountability for their actions. such as the British. In some systems. the lack of a definite election calendar can be abused. prime ministers are elected firstly to represent their electoral constituents and if they lose their support then consequently they are no longer entitled to be prime minister. Canada. In other systems. and thereby giving reason the advantage over passion in the accountability of the government to the people Critics of parliamentary systems point out that people with significant popular support in the community are prevented from becoming prime minister if they cannot get elected to parliament since there is no option to “run for prime minister” like one can run for president under a presidential system. prime ministers may lose their positions solely because they lose their seats in parliament.

just to get elected to a government post that offers only so many thousands of pesos in monthly salary.structure. The country is in turmoil at the moment. A parliamentary form of government is not the solution to the Philippine's political problems. The fact of the problem is the horrible and rampant corruption in Philippine politics. Japan also has a parliamentary system of government. will ever work for the benefit of every Filipino. who is also currently mired in corruption charges. Indonesia is another country with a parliamentary system. • Report Abuse . then the Philippines will continue to go down the abyss. Pakistan is another country with a parliamentary system that is ruled by a dictator (Pervez Musharaf). But ever wonder why there is much less degree of corruption in the US?. You see. no matter what form this system would be. Unless every Philippine politician gets rid of this corrupt and selfish mindset. It is very clear that every Philippine politician's intention of running for any government seat is to use his position to enrich himself once elected to office. and the lack of accountability and transparency for his actions. there are just few examples of nations with parliamentary governments. This is in spite of the fact that the two countries have identical political systems. but still its prime minister was corrupt and had to be ousted by a military coup. And no system of government. The answer is very obvious. Thailand has a parliamentary system of government. but a couple of months ago. Why?. It's former prime minister (Suharto) was embroiled in massive corruption scandals involving embezzlement of billions of dollars. its prime minister was forced to resign in disgrace because of corruption charges. There are daily bloody street protests calling for its prime minister to resign because of lying to the people about the true state of the Czech economy. It is ironic that every politician spends massively for his political campaigns (that runs in millions upon millions of pesos). The Czech Republic is yet another example. the prime minister has not yielded to pressure and the protests go on. As of yet.