Should America switch to a parliamentary system?
Ryan Slechta, Editor in Chief
December 13, 2011
Filed under Editorials
- The colored countries on this map use various forms of parliamentary government. photo courtesy of en.wikipedia.org
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.
Loading ...
The primary problem with a parliamentary system is that politicians are no more than figureheads that are at the mercy of the party, not their constituents. A single party or coalition will only choose one set of policies, meaning that it isn’t the people that decide policies, but much more the party leaders of a coalition that decide the policies. In the US, legislators deviate from their parties far more often than a parliamentary official ever dares.
Also, you may argue that the US system is slow and inefficient, but my belief is that the current system is methodical and careful. It is better to do things slowly and correctly rather than rushing into a decision. Anyways, Europe’s efficient parliamentary system has failed to deal with the mounting debt crisis effectively, and is now on the brink of ending the Euro currency. So much for quick and fast action.
Ryan Reply:
December 24th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Yes, in a parliamentary system, representatives are responsibile to their party rather than those who they represent. But the idea that Representatives and Senators are voicing the opinion of the American people is utter nonsense – 90% of the time, they are furthering their own political career. In a parliamentary system, representatives almost always agree with a platfrom that a group of people – the party – believe is good for the country. Each party seeks to make the country a better place in order to get elected, rather than passing laws and pork spending that furthers the interests of a single person.
Your “slow, methodical system” has failed. We are repetedly faced with threats of filibuster on bills of absolute necessity. The recent payroll tax bill, an absolute necessity for the American economy, was almost shot down because of polarized perspectives in the United States Congress. A parliamentary system, in which the executive and legislative branches are in total agreement, would combat this.
In addition, you bring up the issue of the failure of the Euro. This failure was not the failure of the parliamentary system but the failure of the competing economies of the Eurozone. In a setup in which 17 members of the European Union along with the 5 European Microstates are all pursuing different monetary and fiscal policies, the Euro was doomed to failure from the start.
On the other hand, if the European Parliament had sole control over the Euro, success would have been guaranteed. The idea that the parliamentary system is at fault for the failure of the Euro is insane on the face of it.
In addition, we can look at Third World nations to evaluate the success of the presidential system. Since WWII, two thirds of nations that have adopted a parliamentary system have become “democratic states.” In contrast, no new countries that have adopted a presidential system have become democratic. Not only is a parliamentary system more effective, but it heightens the chances of democratic government.
Max Wang Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 12:18 am
First of all, is 90% a statistic you actually found or did you just pull out a scary-sounding number? If the latter, I ask you to reconsider.
Even if politicians do vote to extend their own careers, you must realize that to advance their own careers, politicians will need to support the voice of the public. And the platform that you so nobly speak of in a parliamentary system is developed by party leaders who, coincidently, suffer the same corrupt eagerness of advancing their own careers. Party leaders want to make their party in the majority–that way, the party leaders get seats in government.
Quite to the contrary, I believe the “slow, methodical system” has been very successful in being, well, “slow and methodical”. Notice your description of the payroll tax debate; it was “almost” shot down. The law was successfully passed, albeit at the last minute. Both sides got a little of what they wanted, and though no one is completely happy, no one was completely left out. Now, would you look at Europe. Who shot down the EU’s grand plan to force countries to control their budgets? Britain, a country with a parliamentary system that has become controlled by conservatives that believe the EU is a progressive monster (in truth, only a slight exaggeration). Little does Britain’s conservative leaders realize that by throwing the EU’s economy into turmoil yet again, it has forced Europe even further into the tailspin of economic recession.
I will admit the Eurozone has many flaws, but the breakdown of the Eurozone is in a large part due to the extreme policies supported by each country’s leading parliamentary party. Germany’s leading coalition insisted upon austerity measures, and it got them–billions and billions of dollars of austerity measures, in fact, that didn’t save Europe’s economy, but spread the insolvency facing Greek banks to Italy, Ireland, and now, maybe even France. To bad, isn’t it, that the liberal voices under Merkel’s Christian-conservative government couldn’t make a stand?
I would like to see the source that you are citing, but you must pay attention to the type of data you are showing. Third World countries are the ones that most often face reconstructing a government. As such, a parliamentary system where one person can never take full control of the government is the safest bet. America even set up a parliamentary system in Iraq. But America, on the other hand, is not a nation that will be taken over by a dictator. The Constitution and belief in democracy is too ingrained in people’s political consciousness that a dictator would never emerge. America is the oldest nation of the face of the earth, and remaining a democratic state isn’t our problem. (in other words, your argument is a fallacy of composition. What is true for third world countries may not, and probably is not, true for America)
But what happens if the party you don’t agree with comes into power? Are we going to have coups every 8 years? The point of a bicameral system that doesn’t elect the head of the government is so that we don’t make rash decisions. Sure, deadlock affects all of us, but at least we have majority rule, minority rights. Under your proposed system, there would be no minority rights whatsoever. I don’t think I’d like that government, whether it was liberal or conservative.
Having a two party, bicameral legislation has saved America from dictatorial presidents. It is clearly the most pragmatic approach to democracy, and has served us well for centuries.