Site Feedback

Presidenrial versus Parliment Regime

Presidential regime based on Centralization in making decisions, the main concept which consists of it is "hegemony". The president does can make anything in any field. He has the hand of power and the parliament in that case is under control of president and the party of majority in parliament is follow to president.

While Parliament Regime based on prime minister as the interactive and effective person in the state and the post of president in that case is honorable. If there are problems with prime minister and president it called "Gaping stage" but if there is interacting with president and prime minister because they are from the same party that called cohabitation period.
So I want to know if two regimes are merged to get the best regime which by it we can manage the state with suitable administration!!

 

Share:

Comments

To my mind, what you're saying is not completely correct. The two systems involve some characteristics that you don't even mention. And these characteristics show a mix of these two systems is impossible :) 

Parliamentary system = link between the executive power & the legislative power + existence of recriprocal means of action. Btw, "cohabitation, in politics, the state of affairs in which a head of state serves with an antagonistic parliamentary majority." (encyclopedia britannica). In practice, the reciprocal means of action are rarely used, which reminds of the presidential system (in fact, the parliamentary system, in it practice, has lots of things in common with the presidential system that I got no time to deal with ahaha). 

 

Presidential system = absence of link between the two bodies + absence of reciprocal means of action. That does not mean the President can do wathever he wants. The parliament has prerogatives that the executive power can't lay to claim to. Plus, if the Constitution plans an absence of reciprocal means of action  & no link between the 2 bodies, in practice all is slighly different (e.g the Shutdown for the US). You added the President was followed by his own party in the parliament : that's true, but just at the beginning, don't forget the midterm elections. 


Then, how is it even possible to mix the two ? :) 

That's just my humble opinion & I hope that makes sense for you. 

I'd like to tell you more but, here is just a summary. The subject is so vast ahaha. 

 

IF you look to the title you'll see that I wrote Presidential versus Parliament I know all what you say but here i wonder what's happen if we merge the two regime together ??

 

(I made some grammar mistakes, excuse me :). 
Plus for the second part of my answer, I'm talking more about the US presidential system than about the presidential system in general) 

Concerning midterm elections, the system of election is differnet between countries. there are countries don't take by the midterm election and contine the the period of membership (4 years)

The US presidential system is different from the academic Presidential regime there are more difference between them.

I answered your question. It's impossible to merge the two regimes since it have strong common links & are opposed at the same time :). For the midterm elections, I told you i was refering to the US which is the most powerful country following the presidential system. 

Some invented what we call a "semi presidential system", but finally that's just a typicall parliamentary system. 

How can you merge a system which plans no action means with a system that plans action means ? Hmmm 

I mention to you one example .. Egypt have implemented a regime close to presidential and parliament regime both. the president had the hand of power and there is a distribution in authorities between prime minister and president, the parliament can call president to discuss him if he miss or made some obstacles in the country and there were more features express about I said.

That's what I was calling a "semi presidential system". But in reality, that's just a presidential system. As I said, there is a gap between the Constitution (theorical side) & the way the political actors act. That's the same in the US :  that's a presidential system, the Constitution plans no reciprocal means of action & no link between the two bodies of the power BUT as a system can't work without any cooperation, the legislative body & the executive one can cooperate. But that's still, according to the Constitution, a presidential system. 

Your last comment is very clear and that what I want to reach it. there is a difference between presidential or parliament regime as a theory and between the reality. In reality, when we implement any regime of both we can't implement it as the book says but we try to implement it in a correct way which reach us to mange the country in a safe way .. do you understand me ?

Ahaha that's why I tried to explain in my first comment, I've not been clear enough, I'm sorry. 

Yes, that's exactly what I think. That's why I don't think it is even possible to merge the two systems. In theory it's opposed but in pratice (in "real life") it's very similar and have lots of common points. So that makes mixing impossible. Don't you think so ?! 

Add a comment