Essays on the Parliamentary Form of Government

Ateneo De Manila University

Parliamentary vs. Presidential: The Need for Open and Informed Discussion
JS Oreta
Department of Political Science
Ateneo de Manila University
This essay will explain on the key positive and negative features of the presidential and the
parliamentary systems of government. Discussion will be limited to the characteristics of the
model types.
The most common forms of government among liberal democratic societies are the
parliamentary and the presidential models. The Presidential-Parliamentary debate centers
primarily (though not exclusively) on the relationship between the executive and the legislative
branches. If we go by their names, we immediately know which branch dominates in each of the
models. In the Presidential model, the role of the President or the Executive is highlighted;
while in the Parliamentary model, it is that of the Parliament or the Legislature.
The Presidential Model
The critical and primary features of the Presidential model are the twin principles of check and
balance and separation of powers. The separation of powers is explicit and intentional: the
legislature makes laws, the executive implements them, and the judiciary interprets them. The
executive, legislative, and judicial branches do not rely on each other in the performance of their
functions, and are in fact independent of each other. Technically speaking, each branch has an
almost equal amount of power that can be used in order to check the power of the other. In the
Philippines, the President acts as the "coordinator" of national concerns and issues and is
expected to be "on top of things," making her wield greater power than that possessed by the
legislature or the judiciary. At the same time, the three branches also have inter-locking
functions. For instance, the President has a legislative veto. The Judiciary, on the other hand,
can declare unconstitutional a given law and even Presidential actions or decisions. The
independence and inter-dependence of each branch ensure check and balance in policymaking and implementation.
The second characteristic of the presidential model is the direct election of the President and
the members of Congress by the people. In societies like the Philippines where a patronage
system and "personalistic" relations are prevalent, this characteristic can be destructive. As we
have witnessed in almost all elections since 1946 the candidates' looks, manner of speaking,
and other personal characteristics, rather than their platform of government
determine their performance in the polls.
Since the President is directly elected, s/he cannot be removed without cause from office prior
to the expiration of her term. In the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the presidency may be
declared vacant only under four conditions: the president resigns, is declared incapacitated,
impeached, or dies. This feature may give the government institutional stability. The downside,
however, is when the President performs poorly. Because of the "security of tenure," the people
would have to endure the whole term of the President.
In general, although check and balance has merits, it may not ensure consistency of execution
with the intents and purposes of the laws. Also, check and balance may result in stalemates

Essays on the Parliamentary Form of Government

Ateneo De Manila University

and confusion about accountability. While these issues may also be present in the parliamentary
system, they are more pronounced in the presidential model.
The Parliamentary Model
The first feature of the parliamentary model is the fact that the head of the government--the
prime minister (PM) - is not directly elected by the people. Rather, people elect members of the
legislature (parliament), who in turn elect from among themselves the Prime Minister. A
candidate needs the support of an absolute majority in the parliament (50%+1) to be declared
as the PM.
The parliamentary model fuses the legislative and executive functions and structures. The
word 'government' in a parliamentary model is generally understood to mean the head of the
government (PM) and the members of the cabinet. The government constitutes and performs
the executive function. Members of the cabinet are usually appointed by the PM from among
the members of the Parliament. The British model, which is bicameral, allows the PM to
appoint cabinet members from the upper house, or in rare cases, private citizens. The
government formulates and submits proposed laws to the Parliament, who in turn either
approves or rejects it. Once the policy proposal is approved, the government administers it
through the different ministries or administrative departments. The government, therefore, has
the responsibility of both policy making and policy implementation. The actual policy process - formulation, passage, and implementation -- is dependent on whether or not there is a
coherent majority party in the legislature .The government should always be on its toes and
must 'please' the parliament since the latter holds the key to the government's continued
existence. The parliament can force or pressure the cabinet and the PM to resign -- either
directly, through a vote of no confidence, or indirectly, by opposing major legislation proposed by
the cabinet. The government, on the other hand, also holds a trump card against the parliament
since it can dissolve the parliament and call for an anticipated or snap election even before the
term of the parliament expires. For instance, if the term of office of the parliament
is seven years -- the government can call for a snap election on the fifth year, or on the sixth
year, sometimes even only after the first year (or less) of office. In other words, both the
government and the parliament have the power to get rid of the other. This, in effect, is the
parliamentary system of 'check and balance. ' Often, anticipated or snap elections are called
when the majority party wishes to strengthen its power in the parliament. For example, after a
successful program launched by the majority party, the government can dissolve the parliament
and call for a snap election, hoping to gather more votes, and therefore more parliamentary
seats. Margaret Thatcher used this ploy during her government in the 1980's. A snap election
can also happen when public pressure demands it, as when the public demands for a change in
leadership because the parliament and the government perform so poorly. Likewise, snap
elections can also be called when the different political parties (in a Minority Coalition
Government) are unable to form a government (Sodaro, 1998. p. 200). Parliamentary models
may be "stable" or "unstable" systems. To be able to form a Single Party Majoritarian
Government, a political party has to control the parliamentary majority, i.e. 50%+1 seats. The
existence of a dominant or majority party fairly guarantees that the government and parliament
will effectively function and work together. This is the current situation in the United Kingdom. If,
however, the dominant party falls short of the 50%+1 requirement, its members can join forces
with another party to be able to control an absolute majority. This is called Majority Coalition
Government. It happened in Germany in 1998. In most cases, the dominant party works with a
smaller party, giving it a chance to participate in the government. These set-ups are considered
"stable" since the government enjoys a fairly sufficient legislative support to be able to function
effectively. The problems of gridlock between or among opposing parties are minimized. On the

Essays on the Parliamentary Form of Government

Ateneo De Manila University

other hand, checks against a coherent legislative majority, which can bulldoze its policies
through the system are too few. An "unstable system" often appears when no single party wields
a considerable majority. In other words, the seats in the parliament are almost equally
distributed among different political parties, necessitating them to work together/ forge a
coalition in order to form a government. This is called Minority Coalition Government. "Policy
making, thus, requires agreement within a coalition composed of multiple parties that tend to
disagree on some important policy issues." (Danziger, 2003. P. 177). Gridlock among parties is
a common occurrence in such a system. "Unstable parliamentary systems have been prevalent
where stronger ideological differences and multiple political parties have emerged in
contemporary legislatures. Italy has had an average of one cabinet (new government) per year
since 1945. During the French Fourth Republic, the parliamentary system was so volatile that
the average cabinet served for only eleven months, and the shortest for less than six
hours!"(Danziger, 2003. P. 177) A third form of government practiced by some liberal
democratic states combines the desirable features of the presidential and parliamentary
systems.
The hybrid system or the presidential-parliamentary system has a dual chief executive, usually
called a president and a prime minister. The Hybrid system attempts to bring together the
efficacy of the parliamentary and presidential forms. One of the compelling reasons why some
states adopt this model is to avoid the executive-legislative deadlock often associated
with presidentialism, and the instability often associated with the parliamentary model. (Lijphart,
p. 20) France, for instance, adopted this model in 1958 after a brief tryst with the parliamentary
system from 1946-1958. (Sodaro, p. 202) The President, seen as the stabilizing force in the
government, has, in most cases, decision-making powers, and can intervene to break
deadlocks. There are, of course, other reasons why states resort to this model. Russia,
for example adopted its own variant during the 1993-94 post Cold-war transition. The hybrid
system can adopt more features of either the presidential or the parliamentary model. For
instance, France and Russia have both strong presidents, while India, Germany, Austria, and
Ireland have strong prime ministers. In other hybrid systems, such as Finland's, a more
balanced power-sharing is exercised by the president and the parliament. However, if the
President belongs to one party and the PM to another, and the majority party in the parliament is
still another, the very thing that it hopes to get away from -- i.e. gridlock becomes its major
weakness. Likewise, there is also the threat of abuse (of power) by a president who is infused
with too much power.
Which form of government is the best for the Philippines? There is no hard and fast rule in
choosing the best form or model of government. The best model, in my opinion, is the one that
evolves from the society, through the inter-play of its political culture, demography, history, and
geo-political position.
Most forms of government have evolved from the unique characteristics of the people, political
culture, history, demography, and other factors of a given nation-state. The Presidential model,
for example, took almost 200 years to evolve in the United States. It is the best form for the US
because it evolved and was developed by its people. The British parliamentary system also
took several centuries. It is the best for the UK because it emanated from the collective will and
aspirations of the Britons. The hybrid system of France is the best model for the French
because it reflects their political culture and responds to their particular needs. On the other
hand, the alien origin of the presidential model is perhaps among the reasons for the
ambivalence of political leaders towards the model. Personally and theoretically, I think the
benefits of a parliamentary form of government far outweigh those of the presidential form. I
think it can pave the way for our political system to finally mature. But there is a serious
discrepancy between the ideal and the actual. The parliamentary model may be best

Essays on the Parliamentary Form of Government

Ateneo De Manila University

theoretically, but not in reality. It is a very new concept for our people. Given our politicians'
inclination to change parties and/or create parties, adopting this model might spell disaster to
our political stability.
Some civil society groups believe that as long as the issue of which form to adopt is discussed
openly and with the participation of all sectors, and the decision is made by an informed and
educated people, whatever form is adopted may be acceptable in the long run.