# Prime minister vs president **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 14, 2015, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prime-minister-vs-president/734609 "2015-10-14T05:02:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2015, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prime-minister-vs-president/734609/41 "2015-10-16T17:55:16Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > Or not. In Spain at least that’s not a requirement And in France, a prime minister (any minister, in fact) is plainly barred from being a member of parliament, and must resign his seat if he happens to be. The PM being the leader of the majority again isn’t a feature of the parliamentary system in general, but a feature of the _British_ system. ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2015, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prime-minister-vs-president/734609/42 "2015-10-16T19:39:04Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > And the answer is, not much. But apparently with the assistance of expert political strategists you can get the poor material elected. > > An analysis of US presidents I saw somewhere recently ranked Bush Jr among the least intelligent, and the disasters he brought down upon the nation seem to corroborate it. I think his dad was smart, although rather creepy. Clinton was an Oxford scholar, Obama’s smart. Most of them are smart but when it comes to inheriting the post you get the same problems monarchies everywhere have had… you can get lumbered with a nutter. ---
**Author:** ![Nema98](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/d2c977/32.png) [@Nema98](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nema98)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2015, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prime-minister-vs-president/734609/43 "2015-10-16T22:47:34Z")
I bet it is generally easier to get rid of a prime minister than a president. A coalition party can withdraw, with the result being the need to call an election. The prime minster can dissolve parliament and call elections. There is the vote of confidence in parliamentary systems, but not presidential systems. Generally prime ministers stay at the helm shorter. Presidents are not removed unless by impeachment and that is because of serious violations of the law. Presidential systems have one fixed elections date, and if the president dies or resigns or impeached, his/her Vice President takes over until election date. But parliaments can call snap elections. The president can’t be fired because there is not higher up, but a prime minister could be fired by the head of state, which is either the monarch or a ceremonial president. Most recent example is Iraq, where the president, Fuad Masum fired the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki despite his party winning the general elections. This does not occur often. By the way there features of both system is not really only an “American” or “British” or “Canadian” system. Canada and Britain are not really unique from other parliamentary systems. And the U.S is no different than other presidential systems such as Brazil. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2015, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prime-minister-vs-president/734609/44 "2015-10-17T01:40:06Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > We have a PM. Our country is just as partisan, just as polarized, just as politically gridlocked . . . . When was the last time you had a government shutdown? Answer: Never. That’s because it’s almost impossible for a parliamentary system to get as gridlocked as a presidential system. See: [http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/politics/inside-politics-blog/2013/10/government-shutdown-could-it-happen-in-canada.html](http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/politics/inside-politics-blog/2013/10/government-shutdown-could-it-happen-in-canada.html) > [@elbows](#): > > It’s true we have a third party, but to little real benefit, though there is certainly potential if unrealized. A third party does create risk of gridlock. Are you sure you don’t want gridlock? Is an occasional government shutdown enough reason to say the US constitution is a bad one? Not quite. I think the main weakness of the US system is lack of responsible government. If the economy tanks in the next year, who do we blame, when government has a party split? It’s not clear. It’s true that a coalition government can have the same defect. P.S. Someone mentioned France. They have an intermediate parliamentary/presidential system. ---
**Author:** ![penultima\_thule](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penultima_thule/32/3833_2.png) [@penultima\_thule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penultima_thule)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2015, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prime-minister-vs-president/734609/45 "2015-10-17T07:35:24Z")
> [@Nema98](#): > > I bet it is generally easier to get rid of a prime minister than a president. No necessarily, I thought the US had a disturbing habit of shooting theirs. The key difference is that is that with a PM you are replacing the head of government. There are usually several democratic ways of doing that, often with alarming speed. Replacing the head of state more likely involves constitutional questions or a coups. ---
**Author:** ![penultima\_thule](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penultima_thule/32/3833_2.png) [@penultima\_thule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penultima_thule)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2015, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prime-minister-vs-president/734609/46 "2015-10-17T07:56:10Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > When was the last time you had a government shutdown? > > Answer: Never. That’s because it’s almost impossible for a parliamentary system to get as gridlocked as a presidential system. Not really. Exhibit #1 Dismissal of Whitlam government 1977. Cause: Refusal by one arm of government to pass the Supply Bill/budget of the other. Yes, the US seems inclined to go to or over the cliff edge more frequently, be it over the budget, or debt ceilings etc. I couldn’t name another presidential model which has the same tendencies. The primary difference is ideological, not the system of government. In the US a fair proportion of the political spectrum thinks shutting down the government is a sound strategy at any time. Hence the requisite brinkmanship becomes passe’. ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2015, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prime-minister-vs-president/734609/47 "2015-10-17T08:53:26Z")
> [@penultima\_thule](#): > > Not really. > Exhibit #1 Dismissal of Whitlam government 1977. > Cause: Refusal by one arm of government to pass the Supply Bill/budget of the other. > > Yes, the US seems inclined to go to or over the cliff edge more frequently, be it over the budget, or debt ceilings etc. I couldn’t name another presidential model which has the same tendencies. > > The primary difference is ideological, not the system of government. In the US a fair proportion of the political spectrum thinks shutting down the government is a sound strategy at any time. Hence the requisite brinkmanship becomes passe’. Was the Whitlam/Gough crisis a shutdown, though? The Senate shot down the budget, and the Governor-General sacked the PM and appointed one who had the confidence of the Senate and the House, who, later, was elected in a general election. Putting aside the constitutional controversy of the GG’s action, it seems the matter was resolved fairly swiftly. ---
**Author:** ![penultima\_thule](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penultima_thule/32/3833_2.png) [@penultima\_thule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penultima_thule)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2015, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prime-minister-vs-president/734609/48 "2015-10-17T10:22:56Z")
> [@Malden\_Capell](#): > > Was the Whitlam/Gough crisis a shutdown, though? . Let’s first correct my inexcusable mistake. The Whitlam Government was dismissed on 11th November 1975, not '77. :rolleyes: [smeg] Did the money run out. No. The Senate deferred the Supply Bills on 17th October. Supply was formally going to conclude on 30th November. So it was nearly a month as departments progressively ran out of cash. They were juggling and deferring capital expenditure, projects and salaries. Kerr blinked. Whitlam wasn’t going to. Fraser wasn’t either, though the resolve of is Senate colleagues may have. One of those imponderables. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2015, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prime-minister-vs-president/734609/49 "2015-10-17T12:26:16Z")
> [@penultima\_thule](#): > > Not really. > Exhibit #1 Dismissal of Whitlam government 1977. > Cause: Refusal by one arm of government to pass the Supply Bill/budget of the other. I was thinking of Canada, but you are right. Australia had one. The reason is a powerful branch of government, the Senate, elected independently of the lower house that elects the prime minister, _and that can block supply_. Although Australia has a mostly parliamentary system, allowing the Senate to block supply (budget) violates the concept. I realize it was ugly, and the Governor-General didn’t cover himself with glory, but there is a system in place for dealing with lack of supply (Governor-General). > [@penultima\_thule](#): > > I couldn’t name another presidential model which has the same tendencies. What commonly happens, in presidential republics, is that paralysis is resolved by a military coup. The US fortunately has different military traditions, so shutdowns are allowed to actually take place. > **[Presidential system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_system#Tendency_towards_authoritarianism)** > > A presidential system, or single executive system, is a form of government in which a head of government, typically with the title of president, leads an executive branch that is separate from the legislative branch in systems that use separation of powers. This system was first introduced in the United States. > This head of government is in most cases also the head of state. In a presidential system, the head of government is directly or indirectly elected by a group of citizens and is not respo... > [@](#): > > According to political scientist Fred Riggs, presidentialism has fallen into authoritarianism in nearly every country it has been attempted. Political sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset pointed out that this has taken place in political cultures not conducive to democracy and that militaries have tended to play a prominent role in most of these countries. On the other hand, . . . the world’s 22 older democracies includes only two countries (Costa Rica and the United States) with presidential systems. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2015, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prime-minister-vs-president/734609/50 "2015-10-17T15:36:23Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > The PM being the leader of the majority again isn’t a feature of the parliamentary system in general, but a feature of the _British_ system. Aside from mixed presidential/parliamentary systems like France, Poland and Russia, in what parliamentary systems is the PM _not_ the leader of the party that commands a majority in the House? That’s certainly a feature of non-British parliamentary systems like Germany, Italy and Israel. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2015, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prime-minister-vs-president/734609/51 "2015-10-17T16:02:30Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > Or not. In Spain at least that’s not a requirement: the current president of Catalonia went as number 4 in his party’s list, thus avoiding most of the speech-making, debating, and being asked actual questions. The previous president of Navarre was number one on her party’s list for the regional parliament, but she wasn’t their General Secretary (that’s what many of our parties call the boss). So do they take instructions from the General Secretary of their parties, and are just leaders of the government in the Assembly? ---
**Author:** ![Nema98](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/d2c977/32.png) [@Nema98](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nema98)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2015, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prime-minister-vs-president/734609/52 "2015-10-17T21:59:34Z")
> [@penultima\_thule](#): > > No necessarily, I thought the US had a disturbing habit of shooting theirs. > > The key difference is that is that with a PM you are replacing the head of government. > There are usually several democratic ways of doing that, often with alarming speed. > > Replacing the head of state more likely involves constitutional questions or a coups. Yes but coups are only possible in dictatorships, I think this thread is about democracies even though the OP has not said it outright. You are correct, but I just have to mention that in countries like Brazil, Chile, United States, Mexico and South Africa, the president is both head of state and government. ---
**Author:** ![Nema98](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/d2c977/32.png) [@Nema98](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nema98)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2015, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prime-minister-vs-president/734609/53 "2015-10-17T22:15:02Z")
The situation in Portugal, a parliamentary democracy with a prime minister at the helm and ceremonial president as head of state, also shows some of the down sides to parliamentary democracies. The ruling center right party of Prime Minister Pedro Passos Coelho win the most votes, **yet** it lost it’s majority. So now despite winning, his party has to form a coalition government with other parties. Portugal has seen coalition governments and they tend to be short lived. PM Coelho can form a coalition with left parties, who are against the spending cuts and tax hikes of his party. If the prime minister fails to form a government, the president may ask the leftist parties, such as Antonio Costa’s Socialists to form a government. So get this, despite Coelho winning most of the votes, he may end up leaving office and his party NOT ruling!! The socialists may end up forming a government, with communists and Eurosceptic parties. > **[Portugal's Socialists poised to form new Left-wing government](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11937638/Portugals-Socialists-poised-to-form-new-Left-wing-government.html)** > > Party leader Antonio Costa says he can offer stable government, with suggestions he will form alliance with extreme Communist and anti-euro parties [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-16/portugal-s-costa-seeks-stable-alternative-to-a-coelho-government](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-16/portugal-s-costa-seeks-stable-alternative-to-a-coelho-government) This is if the current PM fails to form a government, than the president may name someone else as prime minister. Now in presidential systems once you win the election, you are the president unless you died or changed your mind, which in case someone from your party takes charge. Regarding parliamentary democracies, some are often formed through coalition governments, while others win absolute majorities. Turkey will hold another election a second time this year due to failure to form a government. So parliamentary democracies are not immune to deadlock. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2015, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prime-minister-vs-president/734609/54 "2015-10-18T04:17:10Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > That isn’t true in many parliamentary systems that are usually ruled by a coalition. It’s true in the UK (normally) because of the “first past the post” electoral system, not simply because the UK is a parliamentary democracy. If not a particular party, then a coalition. My point was that whatever political group is in charge it has the clear power to act. ---
**Author:** ![Melbourne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Melbourne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melbourne)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2015, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prime-minister-vs-president/734609/55 "2015-10-18T11:08:01Z")
> [@ric62](#): > > To those who have lived in countries that have a parliament vs congress/senate, what are the pros and cons of each system and which do you feel is the better? Would a parliamentarian system get the US out of its current quagmire or would it still be as partisan as it is now? A pro of the parlimentarian system is that you cannot have a deadlock between house and president. The con is that you do not have an independent review of the executive. This is particularly a problem with UniCameral systems (only one house, instead of senate and reps), where the tendency is to become more corrupt and out of control than would otherwise be expected. The con of bi-cameral systems is that you can have a deadlock between senate and reps. This might be a problem in situations where you don’t have a third party (Army, President, Queen) to sort things out: this was the traditional view of the Left in Australian politics, that the senate blocked reform, and that a unicameral presidental system was the solution. In the other common view, it is particularly a problem because it gives the Army, President or Queen an opportunity to sort things out. This is a common view of the Left in Australian politics, partly because they’ve had control of the senate and used it to block things, so now it doesn’t seem like such a bad idea now. The more interesting idea is that the Independent Execuative reduces the political legitimacy and moral responsability of both President and House(s). That it is an underlying cause of problems, rather than the direct cause. Interesting because at present it seems to be an un-answerable / un-arguable theory. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2015, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prime-minister-vs-president/734609/56 "2015-10-18T11:20:22Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Aside from mixed presidential/parliamentary systems like France, Poland and Russia, in what parliamentary systems is the PM _not_ the leader of the party that commands a majority in the House? > > That’s certainly a feature of non-British parliamentary systems like Germany, Italy and Israel. I think the point was that some countries don’t normally have majority parties. Israel, for example, has never had a party with a majority in the Knesset. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2015, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prime-minister-vs-president/734609/57 "2015-10-18T11:59:54Z")
But if that is the point **clairobscur** was making, it’s not accurate. It’s not that the Prime Minister is the leader of the party that has a majority in the House; it’s that the Prime Minister is the leader of the party that has the confidence of the majority of the House. There can be coalition governments, such as the recently concluded one in Britain, where PM Cameron’s Conservatives did not have a majority. There can also be minority governments, where the government does not have a majority, and does not form a coalition, such as the governments of Callaghan and Major (1996 onwards). As well, **Nava** has posted (post 36) that in Spain the leaders of two regional governments were not the leaders of their parties. I’m curious how that worked? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2015, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prime-minister-vs-president/734609/58 "2015-10-18T12:09:41Z")
> [@Nema98](#): > > The ruling center right party of Prime Minister Pedro Passos Coelho win the most votes, **yet** it lost it’s majority. So now despite winning, his party has to form a coalition government with other parties. That’s an odd definition of “winning” - if he lost seats and lost his majority, how do you conclude he “won”? > [@](#): > > If the prime minister fails to form a government, the president may ask the leftist parties, such as Antonio Costa’s Socialists to form a government. So get this, despite Coelho winning most of the votes, he may end up leaving office and his party NOT ruling!! The socialists may end up forming a government, with communists and Eurosceptic parties. That’s a feature, not a bug. The person which can gain the confidence of a majority of the House gets to form the government. If the current Prime Minister no longer has the confidence of the House, and the leader of some other party does have the confidence of the House, then that other person should form the government. ---
**Author:** ![Nema98](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/d2c977/32.png) [@Nema98](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nema98)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2015, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prime-minister-vs-president/734609/59 "2015-10-19T00:04:52Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > That’s an odd definition of “winning” - if he lost seats and lost his majority, how do you conclude he “won”? > > That’s a feature, not a bug. The person which can gain the confidence of a majority of the House gets to form the government. If the current Prime Minister no longer has the confidence of the House, and the leader of some other party does have the confidence of the House, then that other person should form the government. Well his party got the most votes, so he is in first place whether or not it got the majority or not. As for your second point, yes that the feature which seems strange in presidential republics. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2015, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prime-minister-vs-president/734609/60 "2015-10-19T01:50:07Z")
> [@Nema98](#): > > Yes but coups are only possible in dictatorships, I think this thread is about democracies . . . I waited a while to respond because I wasn’t sure you were serious. Pick a half dozen at random and let me know how many weren’t aimed at an elected president: > **[List of coups and coup attempts since 2010](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_d%27%C3%A9tat_and_coup_attempts_since_2010)** > > Coups d'état, coup attempts and coup plots since 2010 include: > 1 December 2023 The example I think people would think of most is Egypt in 2013. Of course, the coup plotters do tend to say that the elected president was dictatorial. If you have what amounts to an elected king, people will say that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prime-minister-vs-president/734609.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prime-minister-vs-president/734609.md?page=4)