Compare the parliamentary and presidential forms of government. What Essay

equalise the parliamentary and presidential forms of government. What argon the strengths and weakness of each - Essay ExampleThe premier(a) Minister (who is the of import decision maker) may be elected to the legislature in the same way that all other members are elected (Governing Systems and Executive-Legislative Relations n.d.). Power in Parliamentary systems is concentrated in the Parliamentary leaders. It fol utters that pressure groups, to get on their interests, must influence the leaders, and this they can do effectively only by putting pressure on them directly or by acting through agencies that can, above all the parties and civil servants. Parliament, of course, also has just about influence with its leaders, hence it is non entirely useless for British pressure groups to try to influence Prime Ministers (Mettenhiem 27). But compared to the pressures exerted through parties and civil servants their parliamentary activities are secondary. For instance, the need to focus pressure on the bureaucrats is strengthen by the activities of British government. First, the vast scope and technical character of decision-making required by welfare-state policies has led to the decadency of more and more decision-making authority to the bureaucracy, so that there is in Britain a vast amount of executive legislation (Ben-Zion Kaminsky 221). Equally important, the decision-making powers delegated to the Departments are likely to be of special concern to interest groups (Lijphart 129). General policy, of course, is until now predominantly made by the Government, but technical details, especially the sort needing fairly frequent revisions (e.g., how oft money is to be paid to doctors what prices to guarantee to the farmers on what basis to grant or withhold licenses to build, import, aftermath securities or acquire raw materials), are taken care of by the Departments, and such details are likely to be of as great concern to interest groups as policy in i ts bounteous sense (Mettenhiem 29). In contrast to Parliamentary systems, where the P.M is a party leader, the President is chosen by a separate election. The President then appoints his or her cabinet of ministers (or secretaries in US parlance). Ministers/Secretaries usually are not simultaneously members of the legislature, although their appointment may require the advice and consent of the legislative branch (Governing Systems and Executive-Legislative Relations n.d.). In this view, the original separation of the executive and the legislature is the main culprit in the now excessive fractionizing of governmental power. side by side(p) Lijphart (1992) the notion of the supremacy of parliament as a whole over its parts is a typical characteristic of parliamentary systems (37).The main differences between the Parliamentary and Presidential forms of government are found in separation of power (Lijphart 16). In general, the Presidential form stipulates separation of power betwee n different branches tour the Parliamentary form means a fusion of power. In both forms, corporatism is characterized by high concentrations of government power as well as private power (Ben-Zion Kaminsky 221). Pluralism, on the other hand, is based on low concentrations of government and private power. A state-directed system is characterized by high concentration of government power, and low concentration of private power. And, finally, high concentratio