This research paper seeks to compare and analyze the Westminster parliamentary system of Canada, and the presidential system of the USA. Literature-based research method was adopted. A number of sources were reviewed to ascertain the theoretical frameworks. The paper established that the Westminster parliamentary system is more stable and efficient than the presidential system.

INTRODUCTION

The debate about the effectiveness of the parliamentary system of government against that of the presidential system has featured in many forums for a long time. In the world arena, the Canadian parliamentary system has ever been compared against the American presidential system. The debaters come up with strong points to argue out their points for the parliamentary system, and so are the proponents of the presidential system. In lieu of this, the essay purposes to discuss the presidential system of the USA, and compare it with the parliamentary system of Canada. For a comprehensive discussion and even comparison of the systems, the paper will look at the weaknesses and strengths of both systems. Finally, the paper will determine which system is effective and desirable.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Before embarking on the discussion of the two systems of government, it is important to note that these two countries base their political governance on democratic principles. There are some reasons considered in comparing these two countries. On the side of the United States of America, it holds a strong presidential system that is coveted by many countries in the world, and that has been stable for years. On the part of Canada, it has a traditional Westminster parliamentary system that also has been stable for some considerable amount of time. Also, these two countries have demonstrated maturity in democracy, and have a similar plurality electoral system. The political principles and culture of these two countries also rhymes to a great extent (Ronald, 1987).

The presidential system of the United States portrays a system of government which is a full presidency. The constitution provides executive power to the president. According to Ronald (1987), the presidential system does not allow the president to propose bills to the parliamentarians. The positions of the head of government and the head of state are held by the president, and have no distinction. The president works with the cabinet and the cabinet has to be loyal to the president. Berryl and Price (2000) outline some advantages of the presidential system that major on speed with which policies are completed. The separation of powers appears to come out very clear in a presidential system, and this is an advantage to its stability.

The system of separation of powers as exercised in America creates a complex and influential system of separation of powers that has more restrictions compared to the Canadian system of government. The Canadian system on its part, is less restrictive and this enables it to pave way for effective making of policies (Berryl and Price 2000). In looking at bureaucracy and policy-making, every system of government chosen has its own effects. This is because; whether people chose a parliamentary or a presidential system, the system will determine the entire governance that will affect the people in all the sectors. In lieu of this, Berryl and Price (2000) advice for caution when selecting a system of governance. The separation of powers in the American presidential system creates three centers of power in the nation, and these centers of power are seen as being equal. These are the presidency, the judiciary and the legislature. According to Ronald (1987), these centres of power can delay policy-making and make it ineffective due to many issues of bureaucracy. Ronald argues that policy making in such systems takes a long time to be effected, not because of lack of will from the administrators, but from the restrictive procedures that come with it. In such a democracy, the legislature relies on support from the people in order to pass bills. Without the support if the majority, the legislature cannot pass bills even if they are vital to their judgment.

The system of powers comes about with conflicts because of power struggle. In controversial issues, the president might want to have the final say, or the judiciary, or even the legislature. Due to the fact that the constitution spells these institutions as having equal powers, they get a hard time to decide who should make the final say (Keith, George & Richard 1997). For example, in the United States, the presidential elections are held differently with the other elections. The president thus gets to office out of the many captivating promises that they made to the people. Because of this, the president would prefer a simple and quick process of making policies that will enable them fulfil their pledges to the people. However, this becomes hard for the president to do so because the laws are set by the legislature. These include the laws governing bureaucratic processes. Because of this tension between the president and the legislature, policy formulation and implementation becomes complicated. The infighting between the president and the legislature is very dangerous for the people, because it allows the two arms assume equal powers as accorded by the constitution.

On the side of the parliamentary system, the conflict and the infighting between the legislature and the presidency is evaded by the fact that the prime minister is part of the parliament (Keith, George & Richard 1997). The prime minister acts as a good link between the presidency and the legislature. They are able to clarify the policies that the executive is proposing to the legislature for approval. The system of Canada has a prime minister with whom the executive relies on for a quick passing of bills. When the executive has a policy that it wants voted for, the prime minister rallies the members of that particular party to vote for the bills in parliament in order to facilitate effective and, as well, quick delivery of the services to the people. As per this discussion, it is comes up that in a parliamentary system like the one used in Canada, the leader determines the bureaucracy the want by themselves. This means that passage of bills will be quick, and also that the implementation of policies will be fast. This appears a very strong point of the parliamentary system as compared to the presidential system. Therefore, the parliamentary system of Canada is more effective in faster processing of bills than the presidential system of the United States of the Americas.

The other issue that comes about in these two governments is that of checks and balances. In the parliamentary system of the United States of America, the senate and the congress are mandated with checking the excessive use of powers by the president and the other arms of the government (Ronald 1987). Because of this, everything the president does have to be vetted and scrutinized by the legislature. This gives the president challenging, hard times in implementing the party’s manifesto. Sometimes the presidency may come up with a very good idea that it had promised the people during the campaigns, but the same is pinned down by the legislature. On the other hand, the Westminster parliamentary system of Canada enjoys protection because of the presence of the prime minister in the parliament. The prime minister plays the role of fighting for the interests of the executive, and through this, they can rally the members of their party to pass bills favoring the executive as fast as possible. In view if this, the parliamentary system of government of Canada is effective than the presidential system of the United States of America.

The Canadian parliamentary system of government can be viewed as a responsible government. It has three arms of government. The executive arm of the government is made up of the prime minister, the governor general, and the cabinet. The judiciary is the other arm and is made up of the Supreme Court and the other courts that are below it (Ronald 1987). The other am is the legislature is composed of the House of Commons and the senate. The reason for considering the Canadian government as a responsible government is the fact that; the executive can be responsible for the action it takes to the legislature that has been elected by the people. Therefore, in Canada, the top leader is responsible for the whole system. The prime minister in the system bridges the queen and the legislature. In this system, the legislature is answerable to the people who elected them, and also to the queen. The judiciary, on the other hand, is responsible to the crown, and to the legislature that makes the law (Keith, George & Richard 1997). Due to this correlation, there is a strong co-existence between the three arms of the government. Nevertheless, the executive has to be accountable to the body that makes laws, the legislature. The accountability that is accorded to the legislature by the executive is extended by the legislature to the people. Therefore, if the legislature fails to perform, as per the judgment by the people, the people do not get them back to office. The strong point of this government is that the legislature and the executive are linked by the prime minister, who is also an elected member of parliament.

Looking at the two systems of government in these two countries, they have some similarity. In both systems, the government is composed of three arms. The US too has the legislature made up of the senate and even the congress and the presidency, as well, as the judiciary. The difference with the system of Canada is that the executive is made up of only the president, who assumes all the powers. This brings up another reason to argue that the parliamentary system of Canada is better than the presidential system which is currently practiced in the United States of America. Although the United States has cabinet secretaries, they have not been empowered by the constitution to participate in executive decision making. In this case, the president has the sole prerogative of making decisions even if they are critical.

Another advantage of the Canadian parliamentary system over the American presidential system is the fact that the cabinet ministers are members of parliament. The cabinet ministers are given jurisdictions by the prime minister in their areas. This allows the government to be connected. It also gives the government an opportunity to represent the people well. While in parliament, the cabinet ministers are able to grasp the needs of the people from the parliamentary debates by the parliamentarians. Keith, George and Richard (1997) assert that this kind of an interconnection has enabled the Canadian government to practice responsiveness to the needs of the people. On the other part, the presidential system of the United States has its cabinet ministers outside parliament. This creates a conflict of interests in terms of priority between the legislature, and the executive. For this reason, a parliamentary system of government like the one of Canada is preferable.

Comparing the two systems of government shows a big difference in the legislature. It is evident that the two systems of government have a house of representatives and a senate. However, the senate is very different. The senators in the American presidential system are elected by the people. On the part of Canada, the senators are appointed, and this has made them very powerful over the years (Ronald 1987). The powerful senate has become unpopular in Canada. This is because it has become almost irrelevant compared to the role it should play. On the part of America, the senate is very relevant because it is elected directly by the people. The American senate is empowered to vote for bills and for a bill to go through, it has to have more than sixty percent support of the senate. The powerful senate in America is another stumbling block to the flow and movement of government bills. Michael and Evert (2004) assert that some bills are taken to the senate, but they don’t pass because of the sixty percent requirement. This is because these requirements for a bill to pass through the senate increase the ties of bureaucracy in the processing of bills.

THEORETICAL ANALYSIS

The effects of the presidential and the parliamentary systems of government is a controversial subject in the contemporary world. Scott and Mathew (1997) argue that that the presidential system is a favorable one because of its superiority and tend to favour it. On the other hand, political scholars like Lijphart (1992) tend to favour the parliamentary system of government. He and the other proponents of the parliamentary system argue that the parliamentary system is a government of stability and efficiency. From the theoretical framework presented by Lijphart (1992), three differences are evident between the presidential and the parliamentary system of government. Firstly, in a presidential system, the president holds power for a fixed period of time. This is different with a parliamentary system where the executive holds power courtesy of the confidence they have with the legislature. Secondly, voters vote for the president in a presidential system, while in the parliamentary system the people who lead are selected by the party. Thirdly, the president alone makes the executive in presidential system, while in a parliamentary system the prime minister and the cabinet composes the executive. The other difference that comes out of the two systems is the issue on the separation of powers. In a parliamentary system, the prime minister is a member of parliament, and hence there is no separation of powers. However, in a presidential system, even the elections for the members of the legislature and of the president are held at different times (Scott and Mathew 1997).

The discussion leads to almost a consensus that in a parliamentary system, there is centralization of power, and the decision making process. In addition, parties are stronger. Through this, the government is more accountable to the people. On the other side, the parliamentary system has been considered for its system of accountability. It is praised for its accommodation of diversity. Lijphart (1992) argues that the presidential system allows diversity by allowing the two houses of the legislature to discuss bills. This has made the presidential system to be very effective in checking abuse of office by the executive. On the part of the parliamentary system, it has been faulted because of its excessive control by the prime minister. Almost all the plans of the executive pass in parliament because of the influence of the prime minister. This may make the legislature to appear as if it is a puppet of the executive, rather than an independent arm. A thorough analysis targeting the two systems in this paper will show which is more effective.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The current research adopts a literature-based methodology where the available literature served as the population of research. Sources of data that were specific on the subject were included in the research. The sources that were talking only about one government out of the two were not included in the sample. The search strategy was employed in the databases and websites like academia.edu with search word like presidential system of the USA versus the parliamentary system of Canada. The analysis used forthe data was based on theoretical frameworks documented literature about the subject, and the synthesis and findings were discussed after a thorough review of literature. The professional and scholarly background of the authors was considered in reaching the conclusion.

ANALYSIS

The two systems of government discussed herein have both their weaknesses and strengths. The review of literature has shown an agreement concerning the weaknesses and the strengths between the two systems of government (George &Richard 1997; Berryl and Price 2000). The bureaucratic nature of the presidential system has been faulted and identified as a big weakness in the system. This is because of its failure to allow smooth flow of policy-making between the legislature and the executive. On the other hand, the proponents of this system (Scott & Matthew 1997) argue for the strength of the accountability of the system in safeguarding abuse of office by the executive. However, it is agreeable here that in case of a weak legislature, the presidency has an opportunity of becoming imperial. On the other side, the parliamentary system has a good flow of policy-making and implementation because of the role that is facilitated by the prime minister. Also, its accountability to the people is efficient because bills are not stopped on the way to implementation. This translates to concluding that the strengths of the parliamentary system supersede its weaknesses when compared with the presidential system. In lieu of this, the parliamentary system is more effective and responsible than the presidential system.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this paper has thoroughly looked at the presidential system practiced in the United States of America, and compared it with the Westminster parliamentary system of Canada. The weaknesses and the strengths of the two systems of government have been considered. Further, the efficiency of the two systems of government, as affected by the structure has also been considered. Available literature has also been reviewed to analyze theoretical perspectives concerning the two systems of governments. From the results, the Westminster parliamentary system is considered more effective, because of its stability, effective policy implementation, and the accountability to the people.

REFERENCES

Berryl, Radin, A., & Price, Joan, B. 2000. “Federalism, political structure, and public policy in the United States and Canada”. Journal of Comparative Policy and Analysis: Research and Practice, 2 (1): 65-89.

Keith, Banting.G., George, Hoberg, L., & Richard, Simeon. 1997. Degrees of freedom: Canada and the United States in a changing world. Canada: McGill-Queens University Press.

Lijphart, Arend. 1992. Parliamentary versus presidential government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Michael, Howlett,& Evert, Lindquist. 2004. “Policy analysis and governance: Analytical and policy styles in Canada”. Journal of Comparative Policy and Analysis: Research and Practice, 6 (3): 225-249

Ronald, Watts, .L. 1987. “The American constitution in comparative perspective: A comparison of federalism in the United States and Canada”. Journal of American History, 74 (3): 769-792

Scott, Mainwaring.& Matthew, Shughart. 1997. “Juan Linz ‘Presidentialism’ and democracy: a critical appraisal”. Comparative Politics, 29: 449-471

CLICK BUTTON TO ORDER NOW