The main objective of this paper is to compare the Canadian parliamentary system and the US presidential system in terms of efficiency and desirability. The paper analyzes and weighs each form of governments’ strength and weaknesses individually. Literature review from different scholars is researchedand used to view their thoughts and attitude towards the two. From the analysis, it is clearly found that the Canadian parliamentary system is the most efficient and desired. Some of the researchers believe,U.S solution to some of the political challenges faced by its people, is adopting parliamentary system similar to that of Canada. USA which is characterized by separation of powers, results to discord between the different levels of the government especially between the legislature and the executive which or who is the president. This derails the policy forming process unlike the parliamentary system where the prime ministerpasses bills into laws without much of a hustle. Presidential system may be considered superior but not effective and desired as far as interests of the citizens are concerned.

INTRODUCTION

Canada and U.S.A are governed by two distinctive forms of government systems which are Parliamentary and the presidential system respectively, which are the most dominant forms of government in the world (Anton 2011). Both forms of government share similarities and differences and with them bring about some weaknesses and strengths to each system. It is the purpose of this paper, therefore to look at all these parameters and compare them and find out which system is indeed efficient and desired among the two. Some democracies like France have adopted a hybrid system of government which integrates the two systems and enjoys efficiency as far as governing is concerned. It is not on my part to be passionate about one form of system against or in favour of the other, but to present literature and facts about each system and justify my stand basing on those facts. This is so as even Price (1943) passionately believes that there is no form of government between the two that is better than the other.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Canada is a constitutionally monarchy where the Queen is the head of state and the prime minister is the head of government. In works of Lijphart (1969), he outlines the major differences between the two. In Canada,The prime minister, cabinet and the General Governor (Representation of the Queen) forms the executive body of government. In Presidential system, the executive is solely made up of president. The president is elected directly by the people in U.S for a term of 4 years, while in Canada, the Prime Minister is appointed by the Governor from majority lead in the legislature, but his tenure in office is determined by the legislature.

Also Lijphart outline another difference in that, in presidential system, each level of government is and exists independently as its own entity, what is referred to as “separation of powers”. This arises from separate elections of the president and the congress (Siaroff 2003).This affects the time period and the ease at which bills are passed into laws. In case of discord or strife between the president and the legislature, this process is halted. In their works, Mainwaring and Shugart (1997) are of opinion that Presidentialism leads to populist candidates.

Parliamentalism ensures more division of power in the executive,and is not concentrated in one person. It also allows hot debates resulting to change of power without an election. It is also less prone to authoritarianism and has offered smooth transitional to democracy, not only in Canada but also in third world countries without instability (Paul 2011). Presidentialism is characterized with coups and other constitutional breakdowns,that has led to collapse of about 30 regimes in third world countries as separation of powers is seriously flawed (Riggs 1999).

Similarly, the two systems share three arms of government, the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. Also the composition of legislature contains two entities, the senator unique to the two and Congress and House of Commons in US and Canada respectively. The senate in Canada is appointed and therefore are not that powerful while in US, the senate is elected making them a powerful entity, and also determines whether bills are passed or not as it must garner 60% of the Senate to be passed (Koger 2012).

RESEARCH METHOD

The use of electronic material, journals, publications and other web materials was widely in depth for research purposes of this paper. The materials provided the facts used to compare the two forms of government systems as required and to arrive to a subjective conclusion based on the researched facts and views of other political scholars, researchers and analysts.

THEORY AND ANALYSIS

In parliamentalism, the policy making process is far much easier and takes lesser time as Prime Minister is part of legislature and he/she is certain that its members will vote it in(Moe and Caldwell 1994). Unlike the Presidentialism, the executive can reject to assent the bill from legislature. Also involvement of the senate in passing of the bills prolongs the policy making process and in some cases brings the whole process to a halt (Koger 2012).

The president has the power to veto (block) a bill but the legislature can reiterate it by amassing two-third of the house (Slezac nd.).The president possess a privilege called the executive order and can pass bills even after legislature have ruled against it (Rosenberg 1981). Overuse of this order can lead to autocracy rather than democracy. On my opinion possessions of such order in times of Nuclear Warfare uncertainties is unsafe and pose great danger not only to American citizens but the whole world as well.

According to Reznick (2011), Canadian parliamentary system has got strong party discipline which he believes is a byproduct of a responsible government system created from strong parties and as also the party rather than the party leader is elected depending with its manifesto.That makes the leader to put peoples’ interest infront of their personal views and interests (Lemco 1998). Reznick also purports the democrats and Republicans in U.S are prone to party spilt weakening the party disciple and in cases are known to be hostile towards one another.

Parliamentary system is conceived as effective and leads to realization of democracy (Linz 1990). Cowen also writes in favour of the system by arguing that parliamentalism not only is effective, but is far way form of a more responsible and accountable government and whose citizens can impose discipline to its leaders(2007). Pastor (2004) believes USA has valuable lessons to learn from parliamentary system like that of Canada who believes that the lack of debate system in United Stated is deprivation of strong democracy and reflection of flaw in the system.

CONCLUSION

It is clearly demonstrated and based upon facts that the parliamentary system remains to be the most efficient and desired. The reason for this conclusion is as a result that policy making, democracy, accountability and party disciple is clearly realized with parliamentary system like that of Canada. The presidential system model has also proved not to be good by the political distress and instability that the Third World countries has suffered on it adoption. The separations of powers and cohesion within the government and party discipline have clearly ruled against it. On my opinion and Parliamentary Westminster system in Canada remains to be the most effective and desired.

Reference List

Cowen, T 2007, are Parliamentary System Better? , Marginal Revolution [Online] available at http://mruniversity.com/ viewed 1 January 2014

Koger, G 2012 “The Rise of the 60-Vote Senate,” Extensions, Winter 2012, pp.1-7, p. 1 <http://www.ou.edu/carlalbertcenter/extensions/winter2012/Koger.pdf>, retrieved February 8, 2013

Lemco, J 1998 “The Fusion of Powers, Party Discipline, and The Canadian Parliament: A Critical Assessment”, Presidential Studies Quarterly 18 (1998), p.287

Lijphart, A 1969 “Consociational Democracy” World Politics 21, 2, pp. 207-225

Linz, J 1990 “The Perils of Presidentialism”, Journal of Democracy, pp. 51-69, p. 51

Mainwaring, S and Shugart, S.M 1997 ‘Juan Linz, presidentialism and democracy. A critical appraisal’, Comparative Politics, Vol.29, No.4, pp.449-71.

Moe , M and Caldwell , M 1994 “The Institutional Foundations of Democratic Government: A comparison of Presidential and Parliamentary Systems”, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 150 , pp. 171-195, pp. 175

Paul, 2011, advantages and disadvantages of parliamentalism, Enfranchise’s Blog, [Online] <http://enfranchise.wordpress.com> accessed 1 January 2014.

Pastor, A.R 2004 Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy.pp.584-593. doi:10.1089/153312904323216186.

Reznick, G 2011, presidential system versus parliamentaty system, [Online],http://edu.com

Accessed 1 January 2014.

Riggs ,F.W 1994, ‘Conceptual homogenization of a heterogeneous field’, in Mattei Dogan and Ali Kazancigil (eds.), Comparing Nations. Concepts, Strategies, Substance, Oxford: Blackwell, p.72.

Rosenberg,M 1981 “Beyond the Limits of Executive Power: Presidential Control of Agency Rulemaking under Executive Order”, Michigan Law Review 80, pp. 193-247, p. 194

Siaroff, A 2003, “Comparative presidencies: The inadequacy of the presidential, semi-presidential and parliamentary distinction”, European Journal of Political Science 42, pp. 287-312, p. 288.

SlezacN, “ThePresidentialVeto:AStrategicAsset” , <http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/Vater/Slezak.pdf>, retrieved February 8, 2013

CLICK BUTTON TO ORDER NOW