I would choose a presidential over a parliamentary government for Brazil. A presidential government is better for the people as they participate directly in choosing their leader. Also, the check and balances present in a presidential government prevent such government from any abuses. Last, the presidential government is politically more stable than the parliamentary system, mainly because the Prime minister can be dismissed at any time, but the president cannot, which puts him in a very stable and powerful position to carry on the mandate of the people. One of the main features of the presidential system is direct election. The direct vote by the nation represents a more powerful and legitimate mandate, because it comes straight from the
…show more content…
Even though the Brazilian Constitution empower presidents to decree laws and initiate legislative proposals, the presidential system overall separates the executive and legislative functions of the government and provides what are commonly called checks and balances. The National Congress may pass laws, but the president can veto them. The president nominates certain public officials, but Congress must approve the appointments. And laws passed by Congress as well as executive actions are subject to judicial review by the Superior Courts. This separation of powers therefore imposes a system of checks and balances that limits the power of both the executive and the legislature (Research Starters). Thus, the presidential system works better at preventing the abuse of power, since the executive and legislative powers are able to monitor each other. In a parliamentary system, by contrast, the legislature holds supreme …show more content…
In the plebiscite, 55% of the voters voted to continue the presidential system, while 25%voted for a parliamentary system, and 20% cast blank or null votes (Presidentialism vs. Parliamentarism). This voters mandate provided support and stability for strong Brazilian presidencies, which have been largely responsible for the high level of success governments in this country have experienced in approving their legislation. Given the structure of the system - a federally structured country with economically diverse regions, political parties with weak popular penetration, an electoral system for the assembly (open-list proportional representation) with low barriers to entry, and features that make state governors influential over party decisions - expectations were almost unanimous of a low-effectiveness system, with too many parties, a fragmented congress and a president forced to rely on ad hoc and costly coalitions in order to approve legislation. Yet, contrary to these expectations, presidents have been capable of relying on a stable coalition who supported them on most of their legislative agenda. This unexpected pattern, in turn, is a function of the president’s legislative powers granted by the 1988 constitution, including the partial veto, decree power, the power to
Even though the Brazilian Constitution empower presidents to decree laws and initiate legislative proposals, the presidential system overall separates the executive and legislative functions of the government and provides what are commonly called checks and balances. The National Congress may pass laws, but the president can veto them. The president nominates certain public officials, but Congress must approve the appointments. And laws passed by Congress as well as executive actions are subject to judicial review by the Superior Courts. This separation of powers therefore imposes a system of checks and balances that limits the power of both the executive and the legislature (Research Starters). Thus, the presidential system works better at preventing the abuse of power, since the executive and legislative powers are able to monitor each other. In a parliamentary system, by contrast, the legislature holds supreme …show more content…
In the plebiscite, 55% of the voters voted to continue the presidential system, while 25%voted for a parliamentary system, and 20% cast blank or null votes (Presidentialism vs. Parliamentarism). This voters mandate provided support and stability for strong Brazilian presidencies, which have been largely responsible for the high level of success governments in this country have experienced in approving their legislation. Given the structure of the system - a federally structured country with economically diverse regions, political parties with weak popular penetration, an electoral system for the assembly (open-list proportional representation) with low barriers to entry, and features that make state governors influential over party decisions - expectations were almost unanimous of a low-effectiveness system, with too many parties, a fragmented congress and a president forced to rely on ad hoc and costly coalitions in order to approve legislation. Yet, contrary to these expectations, presidents have been capable of relying on a stable coalition who supported them on most of their legislative agenda. This unexpected pattern, in turn, is a function of the president’s legislative powers granted by the 1988 constitution, including the partial veto, decree power, the power to