Presidential system

A presidential system is a system of government where an executive branch exists and

presides (hence the name) separately from the legislature, to which it is not accountable
and which cannot, in normal circumstances, dismiss it.

The concept of separate spheres of influence of the executive and legislature is specified
in the Constitution of the United States, with the creation of the office of President of the
United States elected separately from Congress.

Although not exclusive to republics, and applied in the case of semi-constitutional

monarchies where a monarch exercises power (both as head of state and chief of the
executive branch of government) alongside a legislature, the term is often associated with
republican systems in the Americas.

Advantages of presidential systems

Supporters generally claim four basic advantages for presidential systems:

 Direct mandate — in a presidential system, the president is often elected directly

by the people. To some, this makes the president's power more legitimate than
that of a leader appointed indirectly. However, in the United States, the president
is elected neither directly nor through the legislature, but by an electoral college.
 Separation of powers — a presidential system establishes the presidency and the
legislature as two parallel structures. Supporters say that this arrangement allows
each structure to supervise the other, preventing abuses.
 Speed and decisiveness — some argue that a president with strong powers can
usually enact changes quickly. However, others argue that the separation of
powers slows the system down.
 Stability — a president, by virtue of a fixed term, may provide more stability than
a prime minister who can be dismissed at any time.

Criticism

Critics generally claim three basic disadvantages for presidential systems:

 Tendency towards authoritarianism — some political scientists say that

presidentialism is not constitutionally stable. According to some political
scientists, such as Fred Riggs, presidentialism has fallen into authoritarianism in
nearly every country it has been attempted. Critics such as Dana D. Nelson in her
2008 book Bad for Democracy see the office of the presidency in the United
States as essentially undemocratic and she sees presidentialism as worship of the
presidency by citizens which tends to undermine civic participation.
 Separation of powers — a presidential system establishes the presidency and the
legislature as two parallel structures. Critics argue that this creates undesirable
 gridlock, and that it reduces accountability by allowing the president and the
legislature to shift blame to each other.
 Impediments to leadership change — it is claimed that the difficulty in
removing an unsuitable president from office before his or her term has expired
represents a significant problem.

Differences from a cabinet system

A number of key theoretical differences exist between a presidential and a cabinet

system:

 In a presidential system, the central principle is that the legislative and executive
branches of government should be separate. This leads to the separate election of
president, who is elected to office for a fixed term, and only removable for gross
misdemeanor by impeachment and dismissal. In addition he or she does not need
to choose cabinet members commanding the support of the legislature. By
contrast, in parliamentarism, the executive branch is led by a council of ministers,
headed by a Prime Minister, who are directly accountable to the legislature and
often have their background in the legislature (regardless of whether it is called a
"parliament", a "diet", or a "chamber").
 As with the president's set term of office, the legislature also exists for a set term
of office and cannot be dissolved ahead of schedule. By contrast, in parliamentary
systems, the legislature can typically be dissolved at any stage during its life by
the head of state, usually on the advice of either Prime Minister alone, by the
Prime Minister and cabinet, or by the cabinet.
 In a presidential system, the president usually has special privileges in the
enactment of legislation, namely the possession of a power of veto over
legislation of bills, in some cases subject to the power of the legislature by
weighed majority to override the veto. However, it is extremely rare for the
president to have the power to directly propose laws, or cast a vote on legislation.
The legislature and the president are thus expected to serve as checks and
balances on each other's powers.
 Presidential system presidents may also be given a great deal of constitutional
authority in the exercise of the office of Commander in Chief, a constitutional title
given to most presidents. In addition, the presidential power to receive
ambassadors as head of state is usually interpreted as giving the president broad
powers to conduct foreign policy. Though semi-presidential systems may reduce a
president's power over day to day government affairs, semi-presidential systems
commonly give the president power over foreign policy.

Presidential systems also have fewer ideological parties than parliamentary systems.
Sometimes in the United States, the policies preferred by the two parties have been very
similar (but see also polarization). In the 1950s, during the leadership of Lyndon
Johnson, the Senate Democrats included the right-most members of the chamber—Harry
Byrd and Strom Thurmond, and the left-most members—Paul Douglas and Herbert
Lehman. This pattern does not prevail in Latin American presidential democracies.
Parliamentary system
A parliamentary system is a system of government in which the ministers of the
executive branch are drawn from the legislature and are accountable to that body, such
that the executive and legislative branches are intertwined. In such a system, the head of
government is both de facto chief executive and chief legislator.

Parliamentary systems are characterized by no clear-cut separation of powers between the

executive and legislative branches, leading to a different set of checks and balances
compared to those found in presidential systems. Parliamentary systems usually have a
clear differentiation between the head of government and the head of state, with the head
of government being the prime minister or premier, and the head of state often being a
figurehead, often either a president (elected either popularly or by the parliament) or a
hereditary monarch (often in a constitutional monarchy).

Criticisms of Parliamentarianism
One of the main criticisms 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.

Monarchy
A monarchy is a form of government in which all political power is absolutely or
nominally lodged with an individual or individuals. As a political entity, the monarch is
the head of state, generally until their death or abdication, and "is wholly set apart from
all other members of the state. The person who heads a monarchy is called a monarch.

Absolute monarchy
Absolute monarchy is a monarchical form of government where the monarch exercises
ultimate governing authority as head of state and head of government, thus wielding
political power over the sovereign state and its subject peoples. In an absolute monarchy,
the transmission of power is two-fold, hereditary and marital; as absolute governor, the
monarch’s authority is not legally bound or restricted by a constitution.
In theory, the absolute monarch exercises total power over the land and its subject
peoples, yet in practice the monarchy is counter-balanced by political groups from among
the social classes and castes of the realm: the aristocracy, clergy and proletarians.

Some monarchies have powerless or symbolic parliaments and other governmental

bodies that the monarch can alter or dissolve at will. Despite effectively being absolute
monarchies, they are technically constitutional monarchies due to the existence of a
constitution and national canon of law.

Nepal had several swings between constitutional rule and direct rule related to the
Nepalese Civil War, the Maoist insurgency, and the 2001 Nepalese royal massacre. The
Nepalese Monarchy was abolished on May 28, 2008.

Among the few nations where the monarch still claims full power (as head of both state
and government) are Brunei, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Swaziland and Vatican City. In
Tonga the king has majority control of the parliament.

Constitutional monarchy
A constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which a monarch acts as head of
state within the parameters of a written (i.e., codified), unwritten (i.e., uncodified) or
blended constitution. It differs from absolute monarchy in that an absolute monarch
serves as the sole source of political power in the state and is not legally bound by any
constitution.

Contemporary constitutional monarchies include Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Belize,

Cambodia, Canada, Denmark, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Lesotho, Luxembourg,
Malaysia, Morocco, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Thailand
and the United Kingdom.