Parliamentary vs. Presidential Systems: Understanding Government Structures
- Parliamentary Systems
- Presidential Systems
Parliamentary Systems
Characterized by a binding relationship between the government and parliament. Either body can influence or remove the other, creating interdependence. Parliament exercises power over the government through a censure motion. This motion, initiated by a group of congressmen, challenges the government. If successful, it leads to the government’s fall and replacement. Parliament then facilitates the formation of a new government.
In parliamentary regimes, the government is formed within parliament and depends on its confidence. Many countries have developed a constructive vote of no confidence as a safeguard against the abuse of no-confidence motions. This mechanism requires a proposed alternative government when a current one is challenged.
Parliamentary systems can be classified as pure or improper.
- Pure Parliamentarism occurs in monarchies. Parliament is composed of elected representatives with decision-making power. The government relies on the confidence of Parliament, not the monarch, as the monarch is not popularly elected.
- Improper Parliamentarism is found in republics. It depends on the confidence of both parliament and the president, as both are popularly elected. If parliament seeks to change the government, it must propose a candidate, and the president makes the final decision. This can lead to negotiations if parliament’s majority coalition differs from the president’s political leaning.
Presidential Systems
Characterized by a lack of a binding relationship between the government and parliament. The government does not require parliamentary confidence for its formation, as it is also popularly elected. Neither body holds precedence over the other, and neither can typically remove the other. Suppressing parliament constitutes a dictatorship, as seen in Peru under Fujimori.
The United States exemplifies a presidential form of government where parliament does not support the government. In contrast, Chile’s constitution grants the government significant legislative initiative, with parliament approving or rejecting government-proposed laws. In a presidential state, specialized parliamentary advisors often possess more information than government members, aligning with the theory of separation of powers, where the government executes laws.
Chilean legislators may lack specialists for specific subjects, relying on government information. This leads some, like Santibañez, to argue that Chile’s system is closer to parliamentarism than pure presidentialism. In Chile, parliament can control the government by presenting a censure motion. Unlike the U.S., where the president can veto legislation, this does not grant legislative power.