Should America switch to a parliamentary system?
America’s presidential system is broken. In the Senate, the minority Republicans have succeeded in filibustering every idea that has come from the Democratic party. In recent years, the federal government has switched from the concept of majority rule to minority destruction. America needs to accept its cultural heritage: the Westminster system.
In most European nations, the executive branch is formed by whichever party wins parliamentary elections. This system allows for an efficient system of government; Europe lacks the slow, lethargic process of compromise and mutual loss for both sides. Government is led by a single party, allowing for a single, decisive policy on a variety of related issues rather than hypocritical, contradictory policies.
On the other hand, it could be argued that parliamentary systems lead to an extreme change of policy every four or five years. Critics also argue that the system fails to take into account the views of the minority, and that it is an establishment of an “elected dictatorship.”
While these are legitimate concerns, the Westminster system allows the populace to sample different government policies. The idea that a parliamentary system could lead to a style of dictatorship is simply implausible. In a new globalized world, the international influence of strong, Western nations would prevent the establishment of a single-party state in America.
In addition, an extreme change in policies is not necessarily a bad thing. Economic policies vary with the global economic climate; therefore, differing the extreme economic policies of various parties at various points could benefit the United States more than economic compromise. The federal government is broken, and America needs to demand a constitutional convention to fix it.