vs. Parliamentarism Presidentialism
Adolph Hitler once said, "what luck for rulers that men do not think." This remark is a sobering reminder of how some leaders may manipulate and control the masses of society. History books are filled with examples of men that will take advantage of poor social situations and exploit these situations for their own gain. Yet, some countries have had more dubious leaders than others, and some have been seemingly unable to get out of the rule of tyrannical leaders all together, for extended periods of time. African and Latin American continents provide numerous illustrations of this point. Every country and every continent at one point or another had some sort of authoritarian rule. Though a great of these countries have eventually become democracies, especially since the beginning of the third wave of democracy, some have yet to conform to the global standard of democracy. Numerous political scientist have tried to answer the question, are presidential regimes less stable than parliamentary regimes? When answering a question as complicated as one about governing social institutions, political scientists often use complex formulas or statistics, as do Przeworski, Alvares, Cheibub, and Limongi in their article, "What makes democracy Endure?" They give an economic viewpoint using the survival story method to explain certain causes of the stability, or the lack there of to explain a state. Przeworski et al (1996) came up with the magic number of $6,000. This is the amount of GDP per capita that once reached, "democracies are impregnable and can be expected to live forever." So, then, once regimes reach this magic number and have the choice of democratic institutions, what choice should they make? Przeworski et al. (1996) consider the percent of parliamentary, presidential, as well as mixed regime cases that eventually abandoned their form of government and the length of time it took for them to abandon it. They simply go on to make the claim that due to economic factors, as well as others, "presidential democracies
are less durable at almost every level." However, this is hardly an unbiased or fair presumption based on the selected population group. Przeworski et al (1996) have simply used Mill's method of agreement to base their claim. What their case study barely mentions or seems not to take into account at all is third party forces. During this period, the Cold War and colonization were very much still alive in Africa as well as Latin America. So, for instance, when you look at countries like Ethiopia or The Republic of Congo, these like so many other countries of this era had external forces pulling or pushing them to become democratic or authoritarian states. These external forces complicate the basic argument that these states either failed for social or economic reasons. When comparing presidentialism and parliamentarism, few scholars neglect to quote Linz (1990). Though Linz makes numerous valid arguments for both presidentialism and parliamentarism, he falls short of proving that presidential regimes are less stable than parliamentary regimes. In his argument, Linz typically points to the failures of Latin American presidentialism while touting the successes of parliamentary systems. As one critic says, "If, however, his focus had been on instability in postcolonial Asia and Africa, the institutional villain would surely have been parliamentary systems" Horowitz (1990). Yet, Linz (1990) like Przeworski et al. (1996) makes arguments that suggest that presidentialism is more common after dictators and is a more viable platform for dictators to cease control. As Linz (1990) says, "The danger that zero-sum presidential elections pose is compounded by the rigidity of the president's fixed term in office. Winners and losers are sharply defined for the entire period of the presidential mandate." support In of parliamentary systems, Linz (1990) says, "Moreover, a prime minister can be changed without necessarily creating a regime crisis." This is the general basis for most arguments for pure presidential or parliamentary regimes. When a country has just
undergone a revolution or is in its infancy this is when it is most vulnerable. When a country has just experienced a "re-birth," the new state leader sets the tone. As with so many revolutionaries who come to power, once in power they soon forget the principles that got them there in the first place. Everyone knows absolute power corrupts absolutely, so Linz and other like minded individuals believe that a system like the one a parliamentary provides is an inherently more stable choice. Linz (1990) believes presidentialism is a "winner take all" situation. When you have a state leader trying to become a dictator or simply making poor decisions, a parliamentary system provides an easier process to remove that leader. Parliamentary legislator leaders merely have to take a vote of no confidence to remove him, while a presidential system would have to acquire enormous support from both the citizens as well as legislators in order to impeach, or they would simply have to wait till his term expired. In opposition to Linz, Horowitz (1990) makes a valid argument about the weakness of cabinet member in a presidential system. Horowitz (1990) says, "In the United States, for example, cabinets are composed as they are because they represent special interests: agriculture, commerce, labor, and so on. What this means is that the president does not have a completely free hand in selecting them." If however every position in the president's cabinet was voted on this would leave to a sort of "voter fatigue," were voter would have literally hundreds of new persons, party lines, and agendas to try and keep up with these positions and well as an additional layer of conflict between the president and his agenda with say the environment and the EPA. Almost nothing would be accomplished, so instead presidentialist intrust this authority to a president for efficiency purposes. Another set of arguments for presidential regimes comes from Shugart & Carey (1992). They believe that, though presidential regimes have their flaws, they also provide several
benefits to society. One such benefit is at the very basis of the argument; accountability to the voters is a more basic element that presidents are bound by. Presidents in theory must submit to the masses or be accountable to their needs. This element is one that can hurt early democracies but can help more established ones. A politician can to lie, more easily to an entire society because not all eligible voters will vote nor will they all pay attention to every decision that a president makes. This hurts young democracies that may not have well established laws on complex issues like corruption. However, when leaders are accountable to a legislative body like in a parliamentary system, these sorts of things are harder to get away with. So knowing all this, which is the more stable system? The answer is not as simple as Przeworski, Linz, Horowitz or others might imply. Every person is different, every religion is different, every culture is different, every generation is different and so is every country. Presidential and parliamentary regimes are like loaded guns; in the hands of the wrong people, they can be very dangerous to a society. Yet, if that gun is in the hands of the right people it is no more dangerous than a pen or pencil. From a historical and statistical perspective, parliamentary regimes are the safest bets for young democracies. Parliamentary regimes provide the quickest and surest way to remove an ineffective ruler. Presidential regimes should perhaps be reserved for the more mature and well-established democracies.