Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In this type of democracy, a prime minister does not have as much influence or power as a
president, allowing the people to elect a party and not a single person to make crucial decisions.
5. It is easy to create parties.
Any group or organization can form a party or coalition that reflects a shared personal view, and
then have it represented in the government. In the US, it can be difficult to gain any traction.
Subsections of the two major political parties, like the Tea Party of the Republican Party, find it
challenging to be represented. In fact, no third party has made any significant impact on a
Presidential election since 1992.
4. It is often unstable.
When governance is often challenged by demanding minority, unstable coalitions and the like,
this form of government could become unstable. Although many proponents contend that
political culture, highly polarized votes and proportional representation all cause instability in a
government, the practice of flexible election scheduling in a parliamentary and a ruling party
delaying elections could also destabilize the government.
No government is perfect. In fact, the advantages and disadvantages of parliamentary democracy
is the same as other systems. However, any form of government can be a problem if the
supposed democratic system fails or refuses to work for the people. When that happens, it would
be worth reconsidering the circumstances.
Criticisms of parliamentarianism
One main criticism and benefits of many parliamentary systems is that the head of government is in
almost all cases not directly elected.
In a parliamentary system the prime minister is elected by the legislature, often under the strong influence
of the party leadership. Thus, a partys candidate for the head of government is usually known before the
election, possibly making the election as much about the person as the party behind him or her.
Another major criticism of the parliamentary system lies precisely in its purported advantage: that there is
no truly independent body to oppose and veto legislation passed by the parliament, and therefore no
substantial check on legislative power (see tyranny of the majority). Conversely, because of the lack of
inherent separation of powers, some believe that a parliamentary system can place too much power in the
executive entity, leading to the feeling that the legislature or judiciary have little scope to administer
checks or balances on the executive. However, parliamentary systems may be bicameral, with an upper
house designed to check the power of the lower (from which the executive comes).
Although it is possible to have a powerful prime minister, as Britain has, or even a dominant party system,
as Japan has, parliamentary systems are also sometimes unstable. Critics point to Israel, Italy, Canada, the
French Fourth Republic, and Weimar Germany as examples of parliamentary systems where unstable
coalitions, demanding minority parties, votes of no confidence, and threats of such votes, make or have
made effective governance impossible. Defenders of parliamentarianism say that parliamentary instability
is the result of proportional representation, political culture, and highly polarized electorates.
Although parliamentarianism has been praised for allowing an election to take place at any time, the lack
of a definite election calendar can be abused.
In some systems, such as the British, a ruling party can schedule elections when it feels that it is likely to
do well, and so avoid elections at times of unpopularity. Thus, by wise timing of elections, in a
parliamentary system a party can extend its rule for longer than is feasible in a functioning presidential
system. This problem can be alleviated somewhat by setting fixed dates for parliamentary elections, as is
the case in several of Australias state parliaments. In other systems, such as the Dutch and the Belgian,
the ruling party or coalition has some flexibility in determining the election date. Conversely, flexibility in
the timing of parliamentary elections avoids having periods of legislative gridlock that can occur in a
fixed period presidential system.
It has been argued that elections at set intervals are a means of insulating the government from the
transient passions of the people, and thereby giving reason the advantage over passion in the
accountability of the government to the people
Critics of parliamentary systems point out that people with significant popular support in the community
are prevented from becoming prime minister if they cannot get elected to parliament since there is no
option to run for prime minister like one can run for president under a presidential system.
Additionally, prime ministers may lose their positions solely because they lose their seats in parliament,
even though they may still be popular nationally. Supporters of parliamentarianism can respond by saying
that as members of parliament, prime ministers are elected firstly to represent their electoral constituents
and if they lose their support then consequently they are no longer entitled to be prime minister. In
parliamentary systems, the role of the statesman who represents the country as a whole goes to the
separate position of head of state, which is generally non-executive and non-partisan. Promising
politicians in parliamentary systems likewise are normally preselected for safe seats ones that are
unlikely to be lost at the next election which allows them to focus instead on their political career.
List of Cons of Parliamentary Democracy
1. Indirect Election of the Head of Government
Parliamentary democracy is highly criticized since the head of government or prime minister is not
directly voted for by the electorate but by the legislature. There is a degree of certainty as to who wins the
prime minister position since it is already known who the party campaigns for as head of the government.
2. Parliamentary Systems Can be Unstable
Parliamentary systems are often unstable as in the case of Israel, Canada, and Weimar Germany where
effective governance is constantly challenged by issues such as demanding minority parties, votes of no
confidence and unstable coalitions. Some people argue that proportional representation, political culture
and highly polarized voters are some of the leading causes of instability. Flexible scheduling of elections
under parliamentary democracy is prone to abuse, and a ruling party may delay elections to overcome risk
of unpopularity.
3. Voice of the Minority is Often Ignored
Ruling or bigger parties are prone to ignore the concerns of the smaller parties mainly because this does
not offer substantial incentives. In this case, the dominant party may pass legislation without considering
the smaller parties. In addition, the less direct representation and great degree of separation make it harder
for politicians to act for the greater good with the lack of accountability.
It is futile to categorize parliamentary democracy as bad or good, advantageous or disadvantageous. It has
its own share of positives and negatives, as briefly pointed out here, and it is just a matter of taking
responsibility as a citizen when it comes to electing a party and as a politician when it comes to using the
power vested during elections.