Why the US shouldn’t become a parliamentary democracy
The rest of the world views the United States’ government as inefficient and incapable of making decisions in comparison to foreign governmental systems like the United Kingdom’s parliamentary system. This inability to pass legislation quickly, however, represents one of the many ways that America’s presidentialism triumphs over a parliamentary system.
A parliamentary system denotes the legislature as the supreme authority and allows parliament to determine executive power. The people directly elect members of parliament, and the leader of the majority party generally becomes prime minister. The PM then forms an executive cabinet and retains office until Parliament boots them out via a no-confidence vote. In contrast, the presidential system consists of three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. The president leads the executive as the head of state and holds veto power, the legislature proposes laws, and the judiciary interprets the law.
The key difference between presidential and parliamentary systems lies in the checks and balances between the executive and legislature. When creating new legislation, prime ministers cannot easily veto a bill; if they do, parliament can overrule them. However, since the majority party in the legislature typically includes the prime minister and their cabinet, this scenario rarely occurs, and legislation easily progresses. Parliament’s main check on executive power is a no-confidence vote, where members can immediately vote a prime minister and their cabinet out and elect a new executive branch. In contrast, the U.S. Constitution codifies many checks and balances; both the House of Representatives and the Senate, which consist of opposing Democratic and Republican lawmakers, must approve a bill for it to be passed. Furthermore, the President must agree with a piece of legislation and, if vetoed, the bill must be sent back to Congress. Hence, America’s presidential system ensures that laws are truly wanted by the people. Proposed bills must reach a representative and pass the Senate, Congress, and the President, each of whom is elected by the people.
President Donald Trump is currently passing executive orders, issued directly from the president and immediately put into full legal effect without congressional approval. However, even these orders are subject to judicial review from federal courts, and courts can invalidate executive orders if they find them unconstitutional. Indeed, many of Trump’s orders, specifically pertaining to education, citizenship, and funding, have either been blocked by judges or are in the process of being blocked.
The U.S. presidential system inherently represents a government run by the people, for the people, whereas a parliamentary system relies on the majority party of parliament to take charge of both the legislative and executive roles. In the U.S., the leader of the majority party in Congress is not the head of government, but rather someone that the majority of the voting population has chosen. The 52 unsuccessful presidential candidates from the party with a Congressional majority demonstrate how the latter doesn’t always get their preferred candidate, but, instead, the people choose their executive representative. This unique system also allows each candidate to have their own approach to governing, irrespective of party. There are U.S. presidents who had a bipartisan approach such as George W. Bush, or were supported by an opposing party, like when Republicans supported legislation by Democrat Lyndon Johnson and when Democrats worked with Republican Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.
It might seem that the U.S. government is slow and unable to govern America. However, the U.S. government would fall apart as a nation if changed to a parliamentary system. The United States stands firmly on its presidential system as the face of a democratic government around the world.
