There are two main forms of representative government: the presidential system and the parliamentary system. As the name might imply, the United States falls under the former category. Indeed, as political scientist William Hudson says, “Among the world’s most industrially advanced democracies, the U.S. is the only one with a separation of powers system [i.e. presidential system] rather than a parliamentary system.”
The U.S. is an outlier largely because the parliamentary system was not developed until after the Constitution was written. Hudson goes on to say that if the founders “had … the opportunity to consider … [an] alternative in 1787, they, too, might have opted for a parliamentary structure.”
A presidential government is one in which the head of government (the president) and the legislative body (Congress) are different actors. These actors — along with the Supreme Court, in the U.S.’ presidential system — somewhat resemble the government of the Roman Republic in their ability to veto. The system of checks and balances ensures that no one branch of government can become too powerful.
Additionally, each body has its own powers and roles to play in governance. Congress makes the laws, the executive implements the laws and the courts resolve any issues that arise. The U.S. is based on an adversarial system. It was the founders’ hope that the conflicting interests would keep the government divided, thereby preventing tyranny.
In contrast, the parliamentary system is far more centralized. In a parliamentary democracy, there is no separation between the head of government (the prime minister) and the legislative body (parliament). Similar to a presidential system, the prime minister surrounds himself with a cabinet to help carry out the executive duties, but this cabinet is comprised of members of parliament, or the sole governing body, and there is no other governmental structure to limit its reach. In fact, England does not even have its own constitution.
This centralization seems very strange to Americans, who are more familiar with the protection various official structures offer — compared to a parliamentary system that provides no protection against tyranny.
In a parliamentary government, the citizens do not elect the prime minister. Rather, they elect members of Parliament, and the majority party selects a prime minister from its ranks. The parties are centralized, and each member of Parliament must act in accordance to the party platform. Additionally, if the prime minister fails to live up to the party standards, a new one will be appointed.
Because the politicians must follow the party, the candidates themselves are unimportant. In a parliamentary government, people simply vote for a party. Many Americans do this now, but this is unwise, as the U.S. does not have unified parties, but rather parties are organized at the state level. There are really 100 parties in the U.S., with two for each state.
Additionally, the parties have limited power in nominations due to the primaries. People must choose based largely on the personality of the candidates rather than the issues. Presidential governments are not conducive to legitimate discourse on complex political issues. Such systems fail to rise above vacuous slogans.
The major advantage of parliamentary government is the government is not divided. Americans are currently experiencing the problems of a divided government. The two elected branches of government are divided along party lines. Neither side wants to compromise, but both sides have enough power to hold the system in deadlock. How can the American people hold its government accountable when it is unclear whose fault it is?
In a parliamentary government, the majority party in Parliament can usually deliver on its campaign promises. This party is therefore accountable to the people, who will replace an ineffectual government.
So what is to be done? Restructuring the government this much would likely require constitutional convention. The likelihood of this happening is extremely low.
However, we could strengthen and centralize the political parties and do away with primaries. This counterintuitive measure would produce salutary effects, which would ameliorate the current state of America’s dysfunctional government and better promote democracy. The U.S. is exceptional in many ways, but being the only presidential democracy in the industrial world is not an exception to be desired.