Parliamentary Democracy Essay ⋆ Political Science Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

The central feature of parliamentary democracy is the interweaving of the executive and legislative branches. Candidates from two or more parties contend for election to the legislature. The resulting legislature chooses the executive from the leading party or coalition. The executive members remain in the legislature, present their policies to the legislature, and stay in office only as long as they retain the support of the legislature.

A secondary feature is the separation of functions between the governmental leader (i.e., prime minister or chancellor) and a mainly ceremonial monarch or president. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution considered adopting this model. In deciding instead on separate elections for the executive and legislative branches, they created a system that is lauded for its ingeniously contrived balance between power and constraints. Critics of the system charge that, on the one hand, it established legislative gridlock, and on the other hand, it created an “imperial presidency.”

Though parliamentary democracies avoid the particular problems of the American presidential system, they still face the fundamental democratic dilemma of how to provide for effective action yet set appropriate limits to power. Of the various efforts to address this problem, most fall into one of two contrasting types.

The Westminster Model

In this original version of parliamentary democracy, typified by the British political framework, a first past the post voting system allows the two dominant political parties to control the parliament. The division of power is exemplified by the physical design of the legislature, in which the government party sits on one side, confronting the opposition parties across a divide.

Power is concentrated in the prime minister and a cabinet selected by the prime minister. This leadership is supported by strong party discipline, the prime minister’s right to call an election any time within five years, the weakness of parliamentary committees, a second chamber able to delay but not to veto, and a unitary system placing many regional and local decisions in the hands of the national government. A mostly unwritten constitution is subject to changes by simple acts of parliament.

The model is admired for its ability to take fast, effective action based on clear policy choices. Yet it is criticized as unfair to all but the two leading parties and it commonly produces governments based on pluralities. It is also sometimes described as an “elective dictatorship,” with too much power concentrated in the hands of a one-party executive dominated by the prime minister.

This latter argument overlooks the vigorous pluralism embedded in British political culture. Nonetheless, the criticism has led to changes in the British system itself, including devolution to Scottish and Welsh parliaments, which are elected according to proportional representation. The executive’s power has been further limited by the acceptance of European Union (EU) jurisdiction over several aspects of individual rights and social and economic policies. While some of the essential features of the Westminster model have been adopted by former British dependencies, federalism is the rule in Canada, Australia, and India.

The European Model

In the version adopted by several Western European states, proportional representation voting produces legislatures with multiple parties that bargain to produce governing coalitions. The legislatures’ semicircular designs contrast with the confrontational layout of the British parliament. Committees of the legislatures exercise considerable power. Parliaments are bicameral with an influential, but less powerful, upper chamber. Federal systems divide power between central and state governments. Written constitutions are enforced by judicial review.

Admirers of the Westminster model see the European versions as slower to act, requiring incessant haggling behind the scenes, and producing unstable, constantly changing governments. After World War I (1914–1918), German and Italian governments underlined the potential consequences of instability in the system. However, others see the European model as much fairer, more consensual, and more representative than the Westminster system. While it has produced upheaval in some countries, there are also examples of long-lived coalitions and rotations of power that have retained policy continuity for issues upon which there is a consensus, such as in the management of energy resources, economic transition, or key relationships in foreign affairs. This continuity is sometimes achieved through retaining cabinet ministers from the previous coalition.

Bibliography:

Bagehot,Walter. The English Constitution. London: Chapman and Hall, 1867. Dahl, Robert. On Democracy. New Haven:Yale University Press, 1998.
Giannetti, Daniela, and Kenneth Benoit, eds. Intraparty Politics and Coalition Governments. New York: Routledge, 1998.
Hailsham, Lord. The Dilemma of Democracy: Diagnosis and Prescription. London: Collins, 1978.
Laski, Harold, J. Parliamentary Government in England. New York:Viking, 1938.
Lijphart, Arend. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-six Countries. New Haven:Yale University Press, 1999. ed. Parliamentary versus Presidential Government. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Norton, Philip. The British Polity. 4th ed. New York: Longman, 2001.
Warwick, Paul V. Government Survival in Parliamentary Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Policy Horizons and Parliamentary Government. Houndmills, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.

This example Parliamentary Democracy Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.