Narrower Lens Of Comparative Analysis

5. National government to a great extent does not oversee people specifically yet gets states to do so in keeping with national approach

Throughout history, man has strived to create an optimal political system. In an effort to determine this one must establish a set of criterion by which to evaluate the effectiveness of a political system. It is evident that there is no single criterion by which to measure the effectiveness of a political system, but a set of contradictory criterion by which one must find a balance between those that contradict, an example would be the balance of safety and security vs freedoms and liberties. In the establishment of these criterions there are two major aspects to consider when evaluating political systems: the ability of the political system to adapt and survive time, and the political systems ability to offer its constituents a certain quality of life. When taking into account those principles it is possible to evaluate

How do these mechanisms work together? The coordination of the interests of all citizens and actors is a huge task, so there are wide problems such as the provision of public goods, the prison dilemma, the universal clamp and many more. The interests of individual groups or individuals are not always in the interest of society and the state is a solution to these cooperation questions. In parliamentarianism political actors will have a greater incentive to compromise, debates are conducted within institutions, and fewer conflicts may arise between the powers (Linz 1990). I argue that parliamentarism can better resolve these conflicts than presidentialism, since incentives exist to negotiate and debate a wide range of options. On the basis of the way in which incentives intervene in the election and among politicians within these governmental systems, successful negotiations are more likely to occur if the parties are not as much fragmented as they are in presidentialism. Voters also have an incentive in parliamentarianism to adapt their political views to national parties, since these are the key

In both of his readings, Lijphart argues (or concludes) that presidential system is heavily inclined towards majoritarian democracy, which can impede consolidating democratic regime in those countries that face deep ethnic cleavages. He further argues that parliamentary system and its consensus politics are much preferred to consolidate democracy in ethnically-diversed countries. He presents several compelling evidence to support his argument by describing the essential features of presidentialism and how they account for the majoritarian tendency of the presidential system. In chapter six of his book, Patterns of Democracy, Liphart states that the difference between majority and consensus democracy is the range and depth of people’s participation in the executive branch. He distinguishes presidential system and parliamentary system as the former creates one-party majority cabinet where the power is concentrated in the hands of the majority and the latter produces multiparty coalition where its consensual nature allows broad power sharing within the executive cabinet.

A country’s basic regime characteristics are a major factor in government decision-making. It can take different forms such as cabinet, prime ministerial, and ministerial government under parliamentary. Presidential systems focus on the strengthening of the chief executive. The chief executive is directly elected by the people and enjoys a fixed term of office. In a presidential system, the head of state is identical to the head of government. In addition, the president cannot alternate the legislature, but they can appoint government members with the consent of the legislature. The electoral connection makes a government democratic and the political parties play an important role in structuring elections. A presidential system tends to have a party government. Voters in the US have to choose between a republican, democratic, or an independent party. Party government means that government actions are influenced by the values and policies from the government party/parties. Empirical studies show that parties have little impact on government. Instead, once a party is diffused into government, occasionally the party becomes dependent on the government. On the contrary, it can also be claimed that party governments control the government

In PKU, I read many novels and short stories, analyzing them from a comparative perspective. For instance, how is the “body” different in The Age of Gold(黃金時代), The Bluest Eye and The Body Artist, does “body” serves at an object or a subject in the context of the novels and what role does “body” play in the main characters’ self-construction? Currently, as the world becomes increasingly interactive, we are facing various ideas, cultures, values, judgments, etc. In order to maintain our subjectivity in the society we need to reconsider the relationship between our “bodies” and the cultures we live in.

The role of the executive has always remained a controversial issue. In some countries, the executive may champion conservative beliefs, pushing his country towards free-market economies, privatization and military spending. In another country, the executive might have been a populist leader who came to power by mobilizing the masses, championing labor rights and engaging in land redistribution. As Fukyuyama references to in his piece, “Do Institutions Really Matter”, nevertheless, in developed democracies, the role of institutions, such as low levels of corruption and accountable government, have ensured these executives will exercise their power within limit. Another institution such as regular elections provides the people with a “fair” process of choosing representation. Consequently, it is assumed that institutions are of the utmost importance to a society, as they often dictate the political, economic and social ramifications for that country. Therefore, if institutions do indeed matter, is executive leadership helpful or detrimental to their role and effectiveness? We will examine presidential democracies, in particular the United States, a prime example where the Chief of State has much more executive influence than in any other form of democracy, to determine whether this leadership strengthens or mitigates the effects of institutions. It is important to understand that not only does the president have significant power in this system, but also that this nation

      There are two main types of political systems, one being a presidential system and the other being a parliamentary system. Both of them have their own benefits as well as their own disadvantages. No political system can be perfect or can always have stability, but shown in history there are successful countries that use either one. Also there are countries that have failed with one of the two systems.

The only influence we can have over power is the manner in which it is distributed and organized. If we desire to give more power to the government, the natural consequence would be a reduction in the amount of power, which the people possess. If we desire that more power be given to the people, the government must forfeit a portion of the power, which it possesses. The perfect ratio of power distribution between the government and the people has been a subject debated since the world

Politics is usually characterized by contests for and shifts of power signifying the desire of the people to place their sovereignty in the hands of responsible leaders. Such leaders devise political manifestos and promises of institutions to implement the ideal governance that is the people’s craving. This underlies the diversity of political parties, opinions, institutions and other avenues that together define the longitudinal political climate of a state. Moreover, the differences constitute the myriad of systems that allow for comparison between countries based on the similarity or distinction of design systems. This comparison of Intra- and inter-country systems is the concept of comparative politics. The intra-country comparison uses political calculation elements such as the effective number of political parties in the nation. In this light, this research presents the comparative politics of

These authors argue that because Pinochet still had considerable power and used it to influence policy making decisions political elites were less likely to meet the demands of the public. Pinochet established a binomial electoral system that as a result influenced political parties to form pacts or party coalitions. Posner (1999) and Hunneus (2007) argue that because political parties formed party coalitions there was a lack of representation. Political parties spend an abundant amount of time on negotiations within the party coalitions. Because the political elites only negotiated among themselves, they took away the public’s ability to have a say on important issues.

Every country differs in their preference of political system to govern their countries. For democratic countries, two possible choices of governing are the presidential system and the parliamentary system. Since both the presidential and the parliamentary systems have their own strengths and weaknesses, many scholars have examined these two forms of government, and debate on which political system is more successful in governance. In this paper, I will first provide a detailed analysis of both the parliamentary and the presidential system. I will also evaluate each system’s strengths and weaknesses, addressing any differences as well as any commonalities. Finally, I will conclude by using historical examples to analyze and support the

Churchill’s claim that “democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried” is deliberately provocative and intended to challenge the reader’s simplistic ideal that democracy is without faults. There are an estimated 114 democracies in the world today (Wong, Oct 3rd lecture). A figure that has increased rapidly in the last century not necessarily because democracy is the best form of government, but primarily for reason that in practice, under stable social, economic and political conditions, it has the least limitations in comparison to other forms of government. Be it the transparency of a democratic government or the prevalence of majority rule, all subdivisions of democracy benefit and hinder its

Although his theory is a reversal of a more tradition notion of democracy, Schumpeter’s new democracy does have some strengths. Primarily, this theory can now serve as a method for measuring when a nation is not a true democracy. Thus, it provides a more precise criterion for discerning between democratic governments. Secondly, Schumpeter accounts for the importance of leadership in a democracy while the classical theory deemed leaders almost dispensable. Finally, although the electorate’s main function is to produce a government, it can also evict a government. Consequently, “the electorate can accept political leaders, and withdraw this acceptance” (Schumpeter 272).

While watching news programs, reading magazines, and browsing newspapers there are many forms of government. This paper will present the authority and leadership of democracy, dictatorships, and socialism as well as the advantages and disadvantages.