What are the advantages of a parliamentary democracy?

Answer 1

trengths and Weakness of Parliamentary Democracy

Political systems come in all shapes and sizes. Which ever political system you choose, there are many different ways they work in reality. Even democracy works in many different ways. Many Americans do not understand how the parliamentary system is different than that of the United States. The systems vary in significant ways with advantages and disadvantages in both.

The easiest comparison is made between the United States and Great Britain since they both have two dominant political parties, two legislative houses and one well known executive. In the United States the House of Representatives are voted on by state districts. How many people are in the district depends on the population of the state, as does the number of representatives from each state. In Great Britain, the House of Commons is very similar. Representation is based on smaller districts and there are more members than the other legislative body.

The larger legislative body in the United States is the Senate. Each state has two senators regardless of population. In Great Britain the House of Lords serves a similar function as the Senate, although it is much larger. The House of Lords is considered the more prestigious body, as is the Senate.

In both countries the legislative bodies are elected by the people. Theoretically, the members of these bodies job is to represent the will of the people in making laws. In the United States, Congress is supposed to be the most powerful branch of government, which is why the framers made Article One of the Constitution about the Congress. In Great Britain, Parliament has one key power that does not exist for Congress.

The President of the United States is elected by the electoral college, not the people (see Gore v. Bush). The electoral college was created because the founders did not believe the average American could be trusted with such a significant decision. At the time, information did not travel quickly, making knowledge of the candidates difficult. The electoral college is now made up of political party members chosen by each state. The power of the president does not come from Congress. They are totally separate institutions. Although there are checks and balances, the executive and legislative branches function independently.

The Prime Minister of England is also not elected by the people. But unlike the United States the executive in a parliamentary democracy is given his or her authority by the legislative body. The prime minister is chosen by the majority party and can be replaced easily. In the United States the only way Congress can remove the president is through impeachment, a very long and difficult process.

This difference in the executive branch creates the key difference between the two systems. In the American system the executive and legislative branches controlled by members of different parties, as exists now with a Republican president and Democratically controlled Congress. The end result is usually partisan fighting and each side blaming the other for the country's problems and lack of action. In the parliamentary system this can not happen. The executive and legislative branches have to be from the same party, leading to more accountability. The minority party can not be blamed when they do not have much, if any, political power.

On the other hand, parliamentary systems can be confusing and ineffective. Unlike Great Britain, most countries with parliamentary systems have many prominent political parties. For any party to gain majority power is almost impossible without building coalitions and working together. Coalitions can be tenuous, and when they fail the government must reorganize and choose new leaders. Instability makes progress difficult.

This simple comparison highlights some of the significant differences between parliamentary democracy and democracy in the United States. Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses, but evaluation of which is better is up to the reader.

Answer 2

The UK has no single constitutional document comparable to those of most other nations.
The bedrock of the British governance has traditionally been the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty, according to which the statutes passed by Parliament are the UK's supreme and final source of law.

It follows that Parliament can change the 'constitution' simply by passing new Acts of Parliament. However this means that individual rights can be eroded over time by new laws, an occurrence that can not happen where there is a written constitution limiting the powers of the government (e.g. the US Constitution).

There is some debate about whether the principle of parliamentary sovereignty remains entirely valid today. One reason for the uncertainty derives from the UK's membership of the European Union, whereby some of Parliament's sovereignty has been transferred to the European Union.

The UK Parliament also signed up to the Charter of Human Rights and there have been cases where parliamentary acts have been overturned by the courts since then (as the supreme court does in the US).

Many British people are coming round to the view that it is now time for the rights of British citizens to be enshrined in law by a constitutional document.

Answer 3

A pro of a parliamentary democracy is that it is representative of the will of the people. A con is that it can be difficult to get bills passed because of the varied opinions represented.

Answer 4

It's faster and easier to pass a law