In the last century, a lot of countries established democratic governments. Most of them (Russia, Israel, India, etc.) chose a UK-style parliamentary system. How come that has been more popular than a US-style Congressional system? What is the difference, anyhow?
Parliamentary democracies are structurally different than the US system. In the US system, there exists three basically independent branches with checks and balances against each other. While the legislature is intended to be the most powerful branch, it does not dominate over the other two. Elections are held for the chief executive and legislators directly (more or less…the Electoral College being a largely ceremonial oddity that occasionally differs from popular will), and the political parties play important but not dominating roles. There is also a federalist element in that the nation government can be constrained constitutionally by regional (state) governments on certain fronts.
In general, the parliamentary systems typically involve a supreme legislature (Parliament) rules over more or less dependent executive and judiciary branches. Elections are typically held only for MPs and done by voting for a Party instead of a candidate. The parties play major roles, and since seats in the legislature is alloted by in proportion of the national popular vote won by that party, there are many parties (the incentive being that a decent amount of campaigning can net a political party a few seats at least). The majority party (or coalition of parties, if no one party achieves a majority) selects the chief executive (Prime Minister), whose Cabinet comes from the Parliament, unlike in the US system. Parties play critical roles in selecting candidates and maintaining vote discipline among its members, much more so than the Dems and GOP in the US system. There typically does not exist the federalist problem, meaning that the national legislature holds absolute sway over subordinate regional governments.
A decent overview of major differences can be found here .
I’m sure I forgot a few points, but in general that’s the difference between the systems. And of course, there are differences among different parliamentary nations. France and Russia maintain the office of the president as a significant executive role, while in other systems the Prime Minister holds more executive power.
As for being more “popular,” I can’t find any authoritative citation for a reason. I suppose that the parliamentary system simply works better in terms of maintaining national unity while still presenting an effective democratic government. The federal/presidential system is inherently problematic and more prone to gridlock than the parliamentary system. It takes more effort to make it work. I think Tocqueville remarked once about the uniqueness of the American system that makes US democracy flourish, while the same system may not be so efficient in other nations, particularly ones that lack a democratic tradition.
Maybe someone else can find something and elaborate/disprove my conjectures…
Not all parliamentary systems are proportional. In the UK, MPs run in individual districts. Thus, it is possible for a party to get far more representation in the UK Commons than the nationwide popular vote. This is a feature the USA inherited for our Congress.
One advantage of the US system is that it can tolerate gridlock. The President is not required to be supported by Congress and Congress is free to not implement the President’s suggested laws. When this happens, we are not forced to call elections.
(I tend to be of the opinion that gridlock is good. Conservatives and liberals are two ravenous dogs who are fighting over a bone. The people are the bone. If either one of them actually manages to live, that side will devour the people.)
Here’s a list of the electoral democracies of the world. Only the U.S., Argentina and Brazil are described as Federal presidential-legislative democracies.
Bolivia, Namibia, Nicaragua, Mozambique, Chile, Uruguay, Colombia, Seychelles, Sierra Leon, Palau, South Africa, Cyprus, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Phillipines, Panama, Guatemala, Taiwan, El Salvador, Ecuador, Dominican Republic and Honduras are described as Presidential-legislative democracies.
With the exception of the Principality and legislative democracy of Monaco, the remaining 90 are described as some form of parliamentary democracy (Hmmm…, they left out Mexico).
FWIW, it looks like most of the presidential-legislative democracies are in the western hemisphere (although certainly not all). Colonial history may well be an influence, with a country gaining its independence being likely to adopt its former colonial master’s form of government (there’s at least one obvious exception listed).
No question about it, geography is the primary influence. The Freedom House list doesn’t include other presidential democracies like Mexico and Peru, possibly because they weren’t sufficiently democratic at the time the list was compiled. If they were included, the East/West dichotomy would be clearer. Latin American countries have traditionally looked to the United States as the “model democracy” and copied our system.
In Europe, England is to some extent the model democracy. In addition, most European democracies evolved from monarchies, and a monarchy evolves more easily into a parliamentary system with the government answerable to the legislature. In Africa, south Asia, and Oceania, European colonizers were the dominant influence and tended to leave behind parliamentary systems when they bailed.
Thanks for the info. The geographic influence makes sense, as does the impact of being a former colony.
The Freedom House list was also helpful. Is there a good site that defines the various forms of democratic government that are in that list?
Hey lord_vykor, welcome to the board! Good post.
I think the bulk of the Presidential-legislative systems are not Federal because the countries in question are not big enough to sustain a federal system.
Having lived about half my life in the US and half in Canada I perhaps have a warped view, but in my opinion the biggest difference between the systems is that the party leader in Canada has absoute control over who runs under the party label. This results in nearly uniform party line voting since a member of parliament who votes against the party can be thrown out of the party and cannot run under that banner in the next election. At best, he will be forced to apologize and promise never to do it again.
I recall one election in Quebec in which a man who had been elected as a liberal in downtown Montreal by overwhelming majorities was asked then ordered to step aside for a replacement. He did, of course (the law–supported by all the parties–is clear), but ran as an independent. Not only didn’t he get the usual reward for stepping aside (usually a judgeship or something of that sort) but he lost abjectly going from maybe 80% of the vote to 20%.
This system makes the prime minister a virtual dictator during his term in office. For better or worse and sometimes it is one and sometimes the other.
Canadian party politics is not rule with Westminster style parliaments. Look at Tony Blair’s struggle with his party. The problem is a disregard for tradition in that the majority of votes in the house seem to be considers vote of confidence in the government. Should the vote not pass the government is obligated to go and call an election. The use of this tactic is disgusting when dealing with anything less than the budget or war.
Of course back to the OP. Canadian and British parliaments have the executive branch present in the legislature being questioned daily on bills, actions, policy. The idea of the PM being hammered by the opposition parties on a daily basis appeals to me. 
What Hari describes is normally the case with the UK Parliament. British political parties have the same opportunities to discipline those who rebel against the party line, including removing the whip. All that stays it is that the electorate do not like a party that is split - and removing the whip from lots of rebels makes you look (a) split and (b) overly draconian and intolerant.
The main difference in the powers of the whips in Canada and Westminster is, as I understand it, that in Canada the whips have influence over who in called in a debate. In the UK this isn’t true.
Another contrast is that in the UK, MPs who have lost the whip and run as independents have on occassion won - Dick Taverne, S.Davies, Dennis Canavan (although I hasten to add that it is still the exception, not the rule)