Political Stability in New Democracies: Presidentialism or Parliamentarism?
For new democracies in the developing world, which system—presidentialism or parliamentarism— is more likely to ensure political stability? Why? And do we have a universal answer for all countries?
Presidentialism and Parliamentarism are two of the most commonly practised political systems in modern politics, whether they be existing in pure forms or hybrid forms. Amongst the two, which system is more conducive to the maintenance of political stability, particularly in newly democratized states, has remained heatedly discussed. Presidentialism and Parliamentarism are differentiated by the election and removal methods of the political leader of the executive branch, the scope of authority of the executive leader, and the power …show more content…
Society may also be characterized by ethnic cleavages, further pushing for the need of an inclusive political system. According to Lijphart (1985), the institutional design of parliamentarism is more favourable for the creation of a consociational society and power-sharing among players with different ethnic backgrounds and vested interests.
Secondly, the relationship between the executive and legislature is the key to ensuring governing efficiency and effectiveness. Under parliamentarism, the Prime Minister, who holds a membership in the Parliament, often finds it easier to demand loyal support of the Parliament when legislating policies, especially if he is the majority party leader. Strict party discipline further promotes cooperation between the government and the legislature. On the contrary, executive-legislative deadlock is commonly found in a presidential government, especially in situations where the