Compare the parliamentary and presidential forms of government. What Essay

Compare the parliamentary and presidential forms of government. What are the strengths and weakness of each - Essay ExampleThe kick Minister (who is the chief executive) may be elected to the legislature in the same way that all other members are elected (Governing Systems and Executive-Legislative Relations n.d.). originator in Parliamentary systems is concentrated in the Parliamentary leaders. It follows that closet groups, to promote their engrosss, must influence the leaders, and this they can do effectively only by move pressure on them directly or by acting through agencies that can, above all the parties and civil servants. Parliament, of course, also has some influence with its leaders, hence it is not entirely useless for British pressure groups to try to influence Prime Ministers (Mettenhiem 27). But compared to the pressures exerted through parties and civil servants their parliamentary activities are secondary. For instance, the need to focus pressure on the bureauc rats is reinforced by the activities of British government. First, the vast scope and technical character of decision-making required by welfare-state policies has led to the devolution of more and more decision-making warrant to the bureaucracy, so that there is in Britain a vast amount of executive legislation (Ben-Zion Kaminsky 221). Equally important, the decision-making powers delegated to the Departments are likely to be of special concern to interest groups (Lijphart 129). General policy, of course, is still predominantly made by the Government, but technical details, especially the sort needing fairly frequent revisions (e.g., how much money is to be paid to doctors what prices to guarantee to the farmers on what basis to grant or withhold licenses to build, import, issue securities or acquire raw materials), are taken care of by the Departments, and much(prenominal) details are likely to be of as great concern to interest groups as policy in its broad sense (Mettenhiem 2 9). In melody to Parliamentary systems, where the P.M is a party leader, the President is chosen by a separate election. The President then appoints his or her cabinet of ministers (or secretaries in US parlance). Ministers/Secretaries ordinarily are not simultaneously members of the legislature, although their appointment may require the advice and consent of the legislative branch (Governing Systems and Executive-Legislative Relations n.d.). In this view, the constitutional separation of the executive and the legislature is the main culprit in the now excessive fractionizing of governmental power. Following Lijphart (1992) the notion of the supremacy of parliament as a whole over its separate is a distinctive characteristic of parliamentary systems (37).The main differences between the Parliamentary and Presidential forms of government are found in separation of power (Lijphart 16). In general, the Presidential form stipulates separation of power between different branches while the Parliamentary form means a fusion of power. In both forms, corporatism is characterized by high concentrations of government power as well as esoteric power (Ben-Zion Kaminsky 221). Pluralism, on the other hand, is based on low concentrations of government and private power. A state-directed system is characterized by high concentration of government power, and low concentration of private power. And, finally, high concentratio