Essay on Organized Government: Essential Instrumentalities for a Welfare State

In the present era, many nations in the world have an organized form of government whose work is not limited to preserving law and order or defense of the country from external attacks. Its role has been diversified to become a welfare state to develop the country. To undertake these activities or duties effectively, certain basic instrumentalities or organs must be enacted on behalf of the entire system to render the state functional and operational. However, for these agents to function effectively, the law must, authority or sanction must take part, leading to constitutional formalities that lay down the structure, function, and the degree of power of the various organs within the state's jurisdictions (Eggertsson, 2001). The constitutions necessitate democracy, which generally takes the forms of the presidential system or parliamentary system. Therefore, this paper aims at describing the significant differences between parliamentary and presidential systems, citing examples from the American and Canadian governments.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The presidential system was founded in America and tended to reject the legislative supremacy. The system is designed for full republic nations without a constitutional monarchy. In this form of a government system, the three organs of the government, executive, legislature, and judiciary, are constitutionally independent and therefore operate separately (Eggertsson, 2001). The Executive is headed by the President and hence independent of the legislative branch. Contrary, the parliamentary system is known to originate from England and later adopted by several colonies such as India with some changes (Laver et al., 1994). Conflict dating back to 1215, entailing tax increase by the king to finance a war with France. The increasing need to finance the monarch increased the number of local leaders and knights representing the commons invited, leading to the parliament's formation, which was later disintegrated into House of Lords and that of Commons (Laver et al., 1994). The democratic legitimacy of the executive originates from the ability to command the legislature's confidence and is answerable to the legislature. Countries with a parliamentary system can further be divided into either a Parliamentary republic or a Constitutional monarchy.

In most cases, the Prime Minister is always a member of the House of Common mandated to represent a particular electoral district hence unelected by the public. On certain occasions, the party to the prime minister elected most of the representatives in the house of commons. Following an election, the prime minister is expected to resign if the party fails to win most seats and cannot form a government from other party support. Therefore, the governor-general is expected to choose a party leader with majority support in the House of Commons as a prime minister (Rizal, 2019). In a case where the prime minister feels that the party can gain adequate support from other parties, both the Minister and the Cabinet can retain the position until they are defeated in the House of Commons. Regardless of the procedures followed in selecting the sovereign head in the government, the prime minister is the leader to the largest party.

In many Commonwealth countries in Canada, the power and the positions of the Cabinet and the Minister are established by the convention; that is not specified in the formal constitution. The duties of the principal minister entail the recommendation of the members of the Cabinet, including appointment and dismissal and determining the position of Cabinet members (Rizal, 2019). In Canada, the role of Cabinet ministers selection is entirely a prime ministerial responsibility. Therefore, the office of the Prime Minister mainly consists of loyal supporters to provide secretarial support and maintain the Prime Minister's popularity and power.

The legislative branch of the presidential system versus the parliamentary form may be bicameral or unicameral (Gaddipati, 2019). The bicameral legislative system consists of the upper and lower house. Most law creation processes occur in the lower house. To ensure accountability in the federal government and evade the concentration of power in one organ, governments opt for the two-houses. In a parliamentary system, the laws are written by the prime minister and the legislature. In contrast, in the Presidential form of government, the writing of laws is assigned to the legislature for the head of state, the President to approve.

In a parliamentary government structure, the head is chosen by members in the national legislature; thus, there is no significant separation of power between the legislature and the executive as in the presidential model of governance (Gaddipati, 2019). Within the presidential model, the president is entitled with the role to sign the legislation into law, to execute and enforce Congress laws, to conduct diplomacy with a foreign nation, and inspect bills enacted by the congress.

The government’s head in a presidential structure serves a definite term in office. For instance, in America, the president stays four years in office and cannot be removed except through a politically unprecedented impeachment (Rizal, 2019). The impeachment in the United States can only occur if the House of Representatives votes against the president due to misdemeanors or high crimes, followed by the Senate’s vote of conviction to the alleged dereliction (Gaddipati, 2019). Therefore, the impeachment cannot arise from disagreements between the organs of the government. On the other hand, the continuation of serving in the office of both the minister and the sovereign government leader in a parliamentary system depends on the confidence of the legislature. Therefore, a Prime Minister within the parliamentary form of government has no specified time limit in office, depending on parliamentary decisions (Gaddipati, 2019). Through a vote of no-confidence from the legislature, the executive administrators can be detached from office, which can be propelled by a mere political discrepancy between the two government organs. In a case where the Prime minister leads the government, his or her stand depends on the party support. The support ought to be the majority in the legislature or backing from a party coalition if the government is developed through a coalition.

Although the United States government has been severally criticized for being fundamentally ineffective due to competition between the executive and the legislature. The separation of power in the government has fostered unaccountability (Sargentich, 1992). The parliamentary system in the United States is credited for maintaining the governance on particular concerns when the legislature has no confidence in the executive.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the differences between a parliamentary system and a presidential system are observed in all organs of the government. They essentially begin from the foundational processes of formation and extends to the roles mandated to these government branches, the executive, legislature and judiciary, also account for more differences. However, the design for each system is aimed at providing the best form of governance that suits the people, preventing authoritarianism, and developing the nation.

References

Eggertsson, T. (2001). Presidents, parliaments, and policy. Cambridge University Press.

Gaddipati, S. (2019, June 7). The Parliamentary System Versus Presidential System. https://borgenproject.org/parliamentary-system-versus-presidential-system/

Laver, M., Shepsle, K. A., & Calvert, R. (Eds.). (1994). Cabinet ministers and parliamentary government. CUP Archive.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Rizal, o. K. (2019, September 7). Presidential vs. Parliamentary System. Home for ideas and planning: https://rumahpangripta.org/2019/09/07/presidential-vs-parliamentary-system/#:~:text=Presidential%20system%20has%20three%20important,%2Dtake%2Dall'%20government.

Sargentich, T. O. (1992). The Presidential and Parliamentary Models of National Government. Am. UJ Int'l L. & Poly, 8, 579. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1870&context=auilr