# Presidential vs. parliamentary system: Which is better? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 18, 2003, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidential-vs-parliamentary-system-which-is-better/182735 "2003-06-18T16:50:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2003, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidential-vs-parliamentary-system-which-is-better/182735/21 "2003-06-19T20:25:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by llynglas \* > \*\*I believe a big advantage the Parliamentary system has over the Presidential system of government is that unlike a President, the Prime Minister is not a figurehead. In the current Iraq war and others, it was deemed “unpatriotic” to criticize George Bush’s policies as he was the President, and therefore “America”. On the other hand, the UK’s Tony Blair got no such Teflon coated treatment. > > It disturbs me that a president can have so much power, and be able to be held un-accountable because questioning his/her use of it is criticizing the nation as a whole. I’m much more comfortable with having some figurehead like the Queen (or a republican President), who _represents_ the power and glory (and opens shopping malls and launches boats, etc) but does not delve into politics, and have an elected, and criticizable Prime Minister making the decisions. \*\* Maybe you should actually delve into what you are talking about a little more, then. The support Bush got didn’t have to do with the presidential role so much as the way they presented it to the media and the gutlessness of the opposition. I believe Maggie Thatcher had a similar thing going during the Falklands (UK Dopers, please correct). During the Clinton administration, nearly every foreign policy decision he made from the Balkans to Iraq was hotly contested by the opposition - especially the decision to send troops to Yugoslavia. They ended up going in the end, but it was a hot debate. Taking one instance doesn’t prove your point. As for the OP, they’re both fine systems with the right people involved. With the wrong people, they are both open to their own abuses. I don’t think you can really say which is better. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2003, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidential-vs-parliamentary-system-which-is-better/182735/22 "2003-06-19T23:58:16Z")
Also, a nationally elected President is not always an apolitical figurehead. Take France for example. France has a parliamentary system with a prime minister, etc. But the prime minister is relatively powerless and President Chirac runs the show. I don’t know how things would work in France if the President didn’t get a majority in Parliament, how ministers would be selected, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidential-vs-parliamentary-system-which-is-better/182735/23 "2003-06-20T01:51:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Grey \* > \*\*Such an occurance in Canada would likely be remedied by a member of the governing party stepping down and a by-election being run with the party leader running for election there. Tradition would tend to require that other parties do not actively contest the seat. Such tradition extends to other party’s leaders during the period between general elections. I suppose any party leader that lost his/her seat and the election would not last as leader of their party in the first place. \*\* Didn’t that happen to William Lyon MacKenzie King? Looking at [this](http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/2/4/h4-3255-e.html), it seems that one of his terms as Prime Minister ran from December 29, 1921 to June 28, 1926, but in 1925 he ceased to be the MP for York North and then in 1926 he became the MP for Prince Albert instead. There were elections in both years. I’m pretty sure that King lost his seat in the 1925 election and didn’t get back into Parliament until the election in 1926. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidential-vs-parliamentary-system-which-is-better/182735/24 "2003-06-20T03:18:56Z")
Sure, go ahead and make me look stuff up. King served as PM longer than anyone else. He also lost a vote of confidence, which I did not know. The man also managed to represent ridings in Ontario, PEI, Saskatchewan and Ontario during his political life. PM years: 29 December 1921 - 28 June 1926 25 September 1926 - 7 August 1930 23 October 1935 - 15 November 1948 Ridings represented 1919-1921 Prince, Prince Edward Island 1921-1925 York North, Ontario 1926-1945 Prince Albert, Saskatchewan 1945-1949 Glengarry, Ontario And the questionable period of 1926. Neat stuff from [http://www3.sympatico.ca/goweezer/canada/king.htm](http://www3.sympatico.ca/goweezer/canada/king.htm) Prime Minister, 1921-1926. o Major issue was tariffs and freight rates. King lowered them, but not enough for the prairie farmers who gave their support to the new Progressive party (formed specifically to represent western farmers interests.) o Following the election in 1925, King needed the support of the prairie farmers to maintain his majority government and **lost a vote of confidence in 1926**. o Governor General Viscount Byng refused King’s request to dissolve parliament and call for a new election. Instead, Byng called upon Opposition leader Arthur Meighen to form a government. (see Meighen) o Four days later, King called for a vote, questioning the constitutional right of Meighen to govern. The Conservatives lost the vote and Byng had no choice but to dissolve parliament and call a new election. Bolding mine by the way. All of which demonstrates the role of the GG, riding eligibility and removal of a governing party by vote of confidence. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidential-vs-parliamentary-system-which-is-better/182735/25 "2003-06-20T05:11:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lemur866 \* > \*\* I don’t know how things would work in France if the President didn’t get a majority in Parliament, how ministers would be selected, etc. \*\* It was the case before the last presidential election. Chirac was president, but the majority in parliament was from the other side. To put it briefly, the prime minister would be selected more or less like in other parliamentary democracies : someone the leading party in the parliament wants as prime minister. And the prime minister would then choose the ministers (by the way : there’s no particular requirment, legal or traditionnal, here, stating that ministers should be members of the parliament. And plenty aren’t. Actually, if they happen to be MP, they must resign before becoming ministers). However, in the french system, the president keeps some powers, and has some co-responsability in foreign and defense policies. So, traditionnally, in such a situation, the minister of defense and the minister of foreign affairs are chosen with the agreement of the president. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidential-vs-parliamentary-system-which-is-better/182735/26 "2003-06-20T05:35:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lemur866 \* > \*\*Also, a nationally elected President is not always an apolitical figurehead. Take France for example. France has a parliamentary system with a prime minister, etc. But the prime minister is relatively powerless and President Chirac runs the show. \*\* To be a little more accurate, usually, the president choose the major orientations, and the prime minister implement them. And concerning foreign affairs, usually,it’s the president’s job, and the prime minister isn’t much involved (of, course, he is to some extent). That why one wouldn’t hear much about the french prime minister in foreign countries. Also, last but not least, the prime minister usually takes the heat when something goes wrong, and is often used as a safety fuse to protect the president. For instance, currently, the government wants to reform the retirment policies. Which is vastly unpopular, and is resulting in many strikes, protests, etc…Though the president certainly supports these reforms (or else there wouldn’t have been such reforms at the first place), and stated so, since it’s internal policies, it’s mostly the government’s job, and it’s the prime minister who’s on the front line, which is very convenient for the president (of course, there no _requirment_ that it would work that way…the president could be very interventionnist and the prime minister essentially a figurehead. Actually he’s a second in command, sort of) It’s also relatively common for a president to replace the prime minister (though technically and legally, it’s the prime minister who resigns, in such instances), when the government has become too impopular, for instance, or when there’s a major switch in the policies to implement, or when, for political reasons, the president and the prime minister are rivals and actually in strong disagreement (for instance, the prime minister belongs to the same political side that the president, but to a different party, or, inside the same party, he’s the leader/a member of a rival group). ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidential-vs-parliamentary-system-which-is-better/182735/27 "2003-06-20T05:38:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lemur866 \* > \*\*Also, a nationally elected President is not always an apolitical figurehead. \*\* Actually, it’s the fact that he’s elected nationnally which gives him his legitimacy, and allows him not to be a figurehead. Usually, in a parliamentary system where the president has very few actual powers, the president is elected by the parliament, not by the people. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidential-vs-parliamentary-system-which-is-better/182735.md?page=1)