Unlike a presidential government, whose executive occupies a separate branch from the legislative authority, a parliamentary government elevates its executive (prime minister) from the ranks of the legislative body. This means that the general populace does not elect the prime minister directly. Instead, the prime minister is selected by the leaders of his or her party. Consequently, the prime minister is a far less powerful figure than a president, with little autonomy. That lack of independent authority, and the fact that most parliamentary governments have multiple parties vying for power, means that more often than not, for a new government to form, two distinct political parties must forge what are known as coalition governments, in which the prime minister and his cabinet members are from different parties, with different agendas. As a result, the party that received the majority of the popular vote is not always part of the coalition, because the ability for two parties to work together is just as important as who got the plurality of votes.
As an example, if the Ultra Conservatives in Country X were to win 40 percent of the vote, while the center-left Labour Party wins 35 percent, and the far left Socialists win 30 percent, then most likely, the Ultra Conservatives would not join with either of the other parties because their platforms are too far apart. Instead, the Socialists and the Labour Party would form a coalition, even though the Conservatives won a plurality. Due to the fact that separate political parties often have to join together to form a governing coalition, parliamentary democracies are often messier and less able to take decisive action than are presidential democracies. Parliamentary governments must debate almost all potential actions of the executive, and convince those who disagree with the executive's policies to stay on board, or else risk losing their governing majority.
Even non-coalition governments in parliamentary democracies are vulnerable to so-called votes of "no confidence" by members of the opposition. A vote of no-confidence can force an election that takes the governing party or coalition out of power, or dramatically weakens that party's majority.
Finally, when there are deadlocks or enormous disputes on major issues inside parliamentary democracies, there is not a strong judicial branch to mediate and resolve those disagreements. Federal judges with oversight power do exist in countries such as England, but they have far less power than the Supreme Court does in the United States.
Essentially, a parliamentary democracy is designed to slow down the decision-making process, and guard against authoritarianism by making it very difficult for any one person or party to maintain a lock on power. That is a good thing in many ways, as it prevents many parliamentary democracies from getting bogged down in unnecessary military entanglements. On the other hand, during times of crisis, such as the financial meltdown of 2007 to 2009, for instance, or in the late 1930's during the rise of the Nazis, the fractious nature of parliament democracies can make it very difficult (if not impossible) for those governments to cut off debate and take swift, decisive action.
No comments:
Post a Comment