Why parliamentary systems are better

A new prime minister and cabinet of executive ministers may be selected by newly elected members of the parliament. A few parliamentary democracies function as semi-presidential systems. They have a president, elected by direct vote of the people, who exercises significant foreign policy powers apart from the prime minister. They also have a constitutional court with strong powers of constitutional or judicial review.

For example, the constitutional democracy of Lithuania is a parliamentary system with characteristics of a presidential system, such as a president of the republic who is directly elected by the people and who has significant powers regarding national defense, military command, and international relations. Advocates of the parliamentary system claim it is more efficient than the presidential alternative because it is not encumbered by checks and balances among power-sharing departments, which usually slow down the operations of government and sometimes create paralyzing gridlocks.

The legislative branch of the parliamentary system versus the presidential system may either be unicameral or bicameral. Unicameral contains one house, whereas two houses make up a bicameral system. A bicameral legislative system consists of a lower house and upper house.

The lower house is where most law-making occurs. Many governments opt for a two-house legislative branch to avoid the concentration of power in one body and ensure the federal government is held accountable. In presidential systems, the legislative branch will write law for a president to ultimately approve.

Though the president may suggest laws, it is ultimately the legislative branch that will write them. In contrast, a Prime Minister will write laws along with the legislature and pass them. Judicial systems across parliamentary system versus the presidential system have a similar structure. Their structures are similar in that they both strive to create a separation of powers between the judiciary branch and other branches of government.

There are two good reasons why parliamentary systems are better for the economy. First, greater separation of power combined with greater public deliberation, which underlie parliamentary systems, allow for wider representation and broader participation in decision making.

This has significantly positive consequences. Second, parliamentary systems offer much greater stability across consecutive governments. In contrast, transitions between leaders in presidential regimes are usually stark and volatile due to the single person nature of the office.

So it may be frustrating to observe lengthy debates and extended deliberations — as has been the case in the UK over Brexit — but it is important to remember that these checks and balances are just what is needed for both democratic and economic stability. The fact that there is the impasse now is a signal of the system working as it should, not that it is at fault.

If America were a corporation, its bylaws would partition the CEO from his executive and legislative teams and place them permanently at odds, often leaving shareholders in the lurch. By contrast, a Prime Minister is not elected separately, like a President, but is simply another Member of Parliament who holds a seat representing a specific constituency. However, he or she has risen to become the leader of the political party that ends up winning the most seats in the House of Commons, or has formed a coalition with another party to create a majority.

Prime Ministers recruit their cabinets from among their legislative team. As such, a Prime Minister is like a CEO, with support from his or her management team, who devises and passes policies and laws on behalf of his or her voters.

Furthermore, the parliamentary structure is self-purging. Prime Ministers and their parties serve at the pleasure of the public as long as they maintain control. If they lose their majority in a vote on an important issue, like a proposed annual budget, this is considered a non-confidence motion and an election ensues immediately. But getting rid of a President, even if guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, is nearly impossible. The process involves an arduous impeachment inquiry and vote by the House of Representatives and then a trial in the Senate where two-thirds must approve removal.

This near-unanimity threshold is difficult to achieve and the process takes months or years, during which time society is roiled, government is immobilized, misdeeds can continue, and rancor rises.

This has occurred three times in two generations. The American model is rooted in conflict and division whereas the Canadian one, due to the need to hold a majority together in order to govern, leads to consensus and compromise. This necessity results in disciplined, cohesive political parties whose members are forced to toe the party line or face expulsion from the caucus.