Parliamentary Government

Defining Parliamentary Government

Parliamentary government is a democratic form of government in which the political party that wins the most seats in the legislature or parliament during the federal election forms the government. This majority party chooses a leader to be the Prime Minister or Chancellor, and other high-ranking members of the party make up the cabinet. The minority party forms the opposition, and its job is to challenge the majority party. If no party is able to win a majority in the election, a coalition government will be formed with a few political parties cooperating together.

It's called 'parliamentary government' because all of the power is vested in the parliament. In a presidential system like the United States, the executive branch is separate, and the president is popularly elected by the citizens of the nation. In a parliamentary system, the head of the government is chosen from the parliament, and is often one of the most senior members or ministers in parliament, which is where we get the term 'Prime Minister'. Often in a parliamentary system, the country will have a Head of State, who is a ceremonial figure like the Queen, but does not engage in legislating or politics.

Examples: Australia and Germany

Parliamentary government originated in Great Britain, and now countries all over the world use this form of democracy. For example, Australia and Germany both have a parliamentary government, but there are a few differences between them.

Australia, a member of the British Commonwealth, has a form of parliamentary government that is similar to Great Britain. Its Parliament has two houses; the Senate and the House of Representatives just like the United States Congress. The political party that wins the most seats in the House of Representatives forms the government and chooses the Prime Minister. In Australia, the floor of the Parliament is the site of vigorous debate. The majority and minority parties face off regularly to discuss legislation. There's often a lot of shouting and taunting! The Prime Minister takes part in the debates, and must be prepared to join the fray to propose and defend his or her decisions.

Germany also has a two house Parliament. The Bundesrat is the upper house like the senate, and the Bundestag is the lower house like the House of Representatives. The majority party in the Bundestag elects a Chancellor who leads the government. Unlike Australia, most debates happen in small committee meetings. Then the committees bring a bill to the plenary chamber where it goes to a vote. That means there's a lot less fighting in the plenary chamber.

Features

The features of Parliamentary form of Government has been discussed below:

1. Existence of a Titular or Constitutional Ruler: The first characteristic feature of the parliamentary system is the existence of a Titular of Constitutional Ruler. Legally the administration of all the affairs of the state is conducted by the head of the state. In reality, however, the administration is carried by the Council of Ministers. The Monarch or the President, as the case may be, is the head of the state, but not the head of the government.

2. Absence of Separation of Powers: In the parliamentary system the principle of separation of powers is not adopted. Here the three departments of government work in close, intimate contact, sharing some of the powers and functions of one another.

3. Main Role of the Lower House in Ministry-formation: In the parliamentary government the lower house of the legislature, i.e., the popular chamber plays a vital role in the formation of the ministry. The leader of the party or alliance which wins the majority in this house is appointed the Prime Minister or Chancellor. The constitutional ruler appoints the other members of the ministry on his advice.

4.  Responsibility to the Legislature: In such a system the Cabinet or Ministry has to remain responsible to the legislature for all its activities and policies. In countries having bi-cameral legislatures, the Cabinet remains responsible to the lower house composed of the people’s representatives.

5. Collective Responsibility: The ministerial responsibility to the legislature may again be of two kinds:

• Individual responsibility, and
• Collective responsibility.

Individual responsibility means that the minister in charge of a department must be answerable for the activities of his department. But when the ministers remain jointly or collectively responsible to the legislature for the policies and activities of the government, it is called ‘collective responsibility’. Since no individual minister can unilaterally perform any business of government without the consent of the Cabinet, the entire Ministry or Cabinet has to remain accountable for the errors of the minister concerned.

6. Intimate relationship between the Legislature and the Executive: In the parliamentary system an intimate relationship exists between the executive and the legislative departments. So they can easily control each other. The leaders of the majority party or alliance in the legislature become the members of the Cabinet or Ministry. Naturally, the ministers can easily extend their influence on the legislature. Consequently, the programs and policies of the Cabinet are backed by a majority inside the legislature.

7. Leadership of the Prime Minister: The leadership of the Prime Minister is another major feature of the parliamentary system. The leader of the majority party in the legislature becomes the Prime Minister. Though, in theory, he is ‘primus inter pares’, i.e. ‘first among equals’, in reality, he possesses much greater power and status than the other ministers. As the undisputed leader of the majority party or alliance in the legislature he plays the most vital role in the determination and execution of government policies. Indeed, the success of parliamentary democracy depends, to a great extent, on the personality, efficiency and charisma of the Prime Minister.

8. Existence of a Strong Opposition: The existence of one or more strong and well-organized opposition party or parties is the hall-mark of the parliamentary system. By criticizing the errors of the government, the opposition can compel it to adopt welfare measures and prevent it from becoming despotic. Judged from this angle, the opposition can be called the life-force of parliamentary democracy.

9. Cabinet Dictatorship: In the parliamentary system of government the cabinet has to perform manifold functions. It is the Cabinet which:

• formulates well-considered policies of the Government after reviewing both the national and international issues,
• takes necessary, arrangements for passing laws to implement the policies formulated by it,
• determines the matters to be included in the agenda of the central legislature,
• controls and directs the administrative departments so that laws, Government orders, etc. are to be implemented properly,
• co-ordinates the activities of different departments of the Government,
• prepares the draft budget in consultation with the Prime Minister and takes necessary initiative to get it passed in the legislature,
• formulates economic policies and takes necessary steps for implementing the same,
• advice’s the constitutional head to take necessary action during emergency or unforeseen situation, etc.

In this way the Cabinet acts as ‘the keystone of the political arch’ or has become the ‘steering wheel of the ship of the state’. In fact, in the parliamentary system of government as the cabinet members are the leaders of the majority party or alliance in the legislature. Some critics think that the Parliament is controlled by the Cabinet under the leadership of the Prime Minister giving rise to some sort of “Cabinet dictatorship”.

BENEFITS OF PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM 

One of the commonly attributed advantages to parliamentary systems is that it’s faster and easier to pass legislation.

This is because the executive branch is dependent upon the direct or indirect support of the legislative branch and often includes members of the legislature. Thus, this would amount to the executive (as the majority party or coalition of parties in the legislature) possessing more votes in order to pass legislation.

In a presidential system, the executive is often chosen independently from the legislature. If the executive and legislature in such a system include members entirely or predominantly from different political parties, then stalemate can occur. Accordingly, the executive within a presidential system might not be able to properly implement his or her platform/manifesto.

Evidently, an executive in any system (be it parliamentary, presidential or semi-presidential) is chiefly voted into office on the basis of his or her party’s platform/manifesto. It could be said then that the will of the people is more easily instituted within a parliamentary system.

In addition to quicken legislative action, Parliamentarianism has attractive features for nations that are ethnically, racially, or ideologically divided. In a uni-personal presidential system, all executive power is concentrated in the president.

In a parliamentary system, with a collegial executive, power is more divided. It can also be argued that power is more evenly spread out in the power structure of parliamentarianism. The prime minister seldom tends to have as high importance as a ruling president, and there tends to be a higher focus on voting for a party and its political ideas than voting for an actual person.

Parliamentarianism has been praised for producing serious debates, for allowing the change in power without an election, and for allowing elections at any time

The four-year election rule of the United States to be by some to be unnatural.

There is also a body of scholarship, associated with Juan Linz, Fred Riggs, Bruce Ackerman, and Robert Dahl that claims that parliamentarianism is less prone to authoritarian collapse. These scholars point out that since World War II, two-thirds of Third World countries establishing parliamentary governments successfully made the transition to democracy. By contrast, no Third World presidential system successfully made the transition to democracy without experiencing coups and other constitutional breakdowns.

CRITICISM OF PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM 

One main criticism and benefits of many parliamentary systems is that the head of government is in almost all cases not directly elected.

In a presidential system, the president is usually chosen directly by the electorate, or by a set of electors directly chosen by the people, separate from the legislature. However, in a parliamentary system the prime minister is elected by the legislature, often under the strong influence of the party leadership. Thus, a party’s candidate for the head of government is usually known before the election, possibly making the election as much about the person as the party behind him or her.

Another major criticism of the parliamentary system lies precisely in its purported advantage: that there is no truly independent body to oppose and veto legislation passed by the parliament, and therefore no substantial check on legislative power (see tyranny of the majority). Conversely, because of the lack of inherent separation of powers, some believe that a parliamentary system can place too much power in the executive entity, leading to the feeling that the legislature or judiciary have little scope to administer checks or balances on the executive. However, parliamentary systems may be bicameral, with an upper house designed to check the power of the lower (from which the executive comes).

Although it is possible to have a powerful prime minister, as Britain has, or even a dominant party system, as Japan has, parliamentary systems are also sometimes unstable. Critics point to Israel, Italy, Canada, the French Fourth Republic, and Weimar Germany as examples of parliamentary systems where unstable coalitions, demanding minority parties, votes of no confidence, and threats of such votes, make or have made effective governance impossible. Defenders of parliamentarianism say that parliamentary instability is the result of proportional representation, political culture, and highly polarized electorates.

Although parliamentarianism has been praised for allowing an election to take place at any time, the lack of a definite election calendar can be abused.

In some systems, such as the British, a ruling party can schedule elections when it feels that it is likely to do well, and so avoid elections at times of unpopularity. Thus, by wise timing of elections, in a parliamentary system a party can extend its rule for longer than is feasible in a functioning presidential system. This problem can be alleviated somewhat by setting fixed dates for parliamentary elections, as is the case in several of Australia’s state parliaments. In other systems, such as the Dutch and the Belgian, the ruling party or coalition has some flexibility in determining the election date. Conversely, flexibility in the timing of parliamentary elections avoids having periods of legislative gridlock that can occur in a fixed period presidential system.

It has been argued that elections at set intervals are a means of insulating the government from the transient passions of the people, and thereby giving reason the advantage over passion in the accountability of the government to the people

Critics of parliamentary systems point out that people with significant popular support in the community are prevented from becoming prime minister if they cannot get elected to parliament since there is no option to “run for prime minister” like one can run for president under a presidential system.

Additionally, prime ministers may lose their positions solely because they lose their seats in parliament, even though they may still be popular nationally. Supporters of parliamentarianism can respond by saying that as members of parliament, prime ministers are elected firstly to represent their electoral constituents and if they lose their support then consequently they are no longer entitled to be prime minister. In parliamentary systems, the role of the statesman who represents the country as a whole goes to the separate position of head of state, which is generally non-executive and non-partisan. Promising politicians in parliamentary systems likewise are normally preselected for safe seats – ones that are unlikely to be lost at the next election – which allows them to focus instead on their political career.