Political Stability in New Democracies free essay sample

For new democracies in the developing world, which system—presidentialism or parliamentarism— is more likely to ensure political stability? Why? And do we have a universal answer for all countries? Presidentialism and Parliamentarism are two of the most commonly practised political systems in modern politics, whether they be existing in pure forms or hybrid forms. Amongst the two, which system is more conducive to the maintenance of political stability, particularly in newly democratized states, has remained heatedly discussed. Presidentialism and Parliamentarism are differentiated by the election and removal methods of the political leader of the executive branch, the scope of authority of the executive leader, and the power relationship between the executive and the legislative branches. Their distinctive features have ensured political stability in one way or another, which will be discussed and contrasted in this paper. To assist analysis, â€Å"political stability† shall be defined as â€Å"smooth transition to and consolidation of democracy† in the context of this paper. We will write a custom essay sample on Political Stability in New Democracies or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page To substantiate the analysis, examples of new democracies arisen from the Third Wave of Democratization will be included. Lastly, a concluding remark shall be drawn on the question whether there is a universal answer for all new democracies. Presidentialism is widely adopted in the United States of America (US) and Latin America. A key feature of presidentialism is the independence of the executive and legislative branches from each other. The president, as head of the executive branch and the whole government, is â€Å"independently elected on the basis of popular election† (Mahler, 2008). Since he enjoys public mandate derived from the election, neither him, nor the cabinet chosen by him, are directly accountable to the legislature. He is often vested with two important roles, namely the Head of State (performing symbolically as the representative of a state in ceremonial functions) and the Head of Government (administrative role). With both the executive and the legislature popularly elected, the two branches enjoy dual authority. President enjoys fixed term of office, usually subject to re-elections at regular intervals. It is often difficult to remove president except through impeachment. For example, the US President may only be removed from office by the impeachment of Congress under 4 circumstances through a complicated trial process (Section 4, Article II, US Constitution). Parliamentarism is well received and practised in European countries, such as the United Kingdom (UK) and Spain. It is often characterized as â€Å"Fusion of powers† (Heywood, 2000), as the Prime Minister is the party leader of the majority party, elected from the same election as other members of the parliament. In other words, he has an overlapping membership in the executive and legislative branches. The relationship between the Prime Minister and the Parliament is described as mutually dependent (Stepan amp; Skach, 1993). On one hand, the Prime Minister relies on the support of the Parliament to gain office and sustain power, and may easily be removed with a vote of no-confidence. On the other hand, he enjoys the authority to dissolve the legislature in cases of major political deadlocks. Parliamentary election is usually held more flexibly without a regular time interval. The Third Wave of Democratization emerged after the decline of authoritarian rule and â€Å"the strengthening of civil society† (Shin, 1994) with an increase in public’s civil awareness towards their own political rights. Nevertheless, fight for political power and ethnical cleavages were not uncommon at the beginning stage of democratization (Lijphart, 1996), and were often obstacles of pursuance of political stability and consolidation of democracy. Therefore, a parliamentary system, known for its flexibility, more equal power delegation and impetus to political cooperation and party development, is more likely to ensure political stability in new democracies. Firstly, after fall of a political regime and the rise of another, society is usually politically divided, giving rise to diverse political voices and numerous political parties (Shin, 1994). To ensure political stability and prevent riots, it is important to give representation to different parties, so that their cultural and political interests are articulated and catered to. Under parliamentarism, upon no simple majority vote on any party is casted, political parties are forced to form coalitions with other political parties, thus addressing the diverse interests of different groups in society. An example would be the first free election of Spain after democratization, where a total of 4 parties managed to win seats in the parliament, with none claiming a plurality vote (Linz, 1990). Proportional representation system, in complementary with parliamentarism, can â€Å"counteract potential threats to national unity and political stability in ethnically heterogeneous countries† (Rokkan, S. 1970, as cited in Lijphart, 1996). Bagehot (1981) observed that â€Å"the mutual dependence of cabinet and parliament for survival creates a strong incentive for legislators to form stable coalitions behind broad policy platforms†, hence more effectively aggregating and articulating the national diverse interests. Yet, the competitive nature of the president ial elections in presidentialism favours majoritarian and fosters two-party system, given that the presidency is nondivisive (Lijphart, 1996; Stepan amp; Skach, 1993), as well as that huge amount of financial resources and manpower are focused on running for the presidential election. Linz (1990) contended that the winner-takes-all presidential election further polarizes the society, pushing public to the two edges of the political spectrum. As such, politics may be dominated by key players while political voices of the minorities may be ignored. While two-party system may grow in popularity in well-developed states like the US and UK nowadays, this may be detrimental to the political stability of new democracies, especially at the beginning stage when society is rather divided and polarized about the change of political regime. Society may also be characterized by ethnic cleavages, further pushing for the need of an inclusive political system. According to Lijphart (1985), the institutional design of parliamentarism is more favourable for the creation of a consociational society and power-sharing among players with different ethnic backgrounds and vested interests. Secondly, the relationship between the executive and legislature is the key to ensuring governing efficiency and effectiveness. Under parliamentarism, the Prime Minister, who holds a membership in the Parliament, often finds it easier to demand loyal support of the Parliament when legislating policies, especially if he is the majority party leader. Strict party discipline further promotes cooperation between the government and the legislature. On the contrary, executive-legislative deadlock is commonly found in a presidential government, especially in situations where the legislature is dominated by President’s rival party, resulting in a ‘lame-duck’ administration. Even in well-established presidential political system like that of US, disagreement between the President and the legislature can result in devastating consequences like temporary closedown of the federal government due to a lack of appropriations in 1996. (Gressle, S. S. , 1999). The massive failures of Latin American countries in Reversed Second Wave, which were mostly presidential regimes, were also due to the deadlocks between the two branches of the government (Shin, 1994). Considering the wide spectrum of political cleavages at the infancy of democracy in the country, a cooperative executive-legislative relationship is crucial to ensuring the proper functioning of the government and a smooth transition to democracy. More importantly, without a reliable support of the legislative majority in policy-making process, the President is more prone to resort to using decree authority (Power, n. d. ), bypassing the legislature. For instance, since 1939, 90% of the international agreements between the US and other foreign powers were signed at the discretion of the President without prior approval of the Senate as required by the Constitution (LII, n. d. ). Even if the Separation of Powers doctrine and the Checks and Balances mechanism are in place, there are circumstances where the President can circumvent the rules. This poses a great danger, especially to new democracies, for the President’s power can easily go unrestrained, leading to over-centralized power in the executive branch, or worse, in a single person as contended by Lijphart (1996). Thirdly, Prime Minister in parliamentary democracies undergoes less time pressure when compared to President in presidentialism. Linz (1990) noted that the fixed term of office of the President constraints his ability to implement far-reaching promises, such as radical social policies. In fact, policy initiatives tend to be ill-conceived and discontinuous, as President is more likely to make hasty decisions to win support of the public, with his mind set on his own agenda of getting re-elected (Mahler, 2008). Nevertheless, Huntington (1991) observed a distinctive unprecedented economic boom giving rise to the Third Wave of Democratization. In face of ever-changing economic situations, it is essential for a newly developed democratic government to possess vision and long-term planning for the political and economic development of the country. In turn, good governing performance helps consolidate the legitimacy of the government and consequently builds public confidence in the new political system. Unlike presidentialism, Prime Minister in parliamentarism is less limited by the time frame of political term. He has larger capacity to launch long-term goals and developmental plans for the country, which may largely be in line with party initiatives. Fourthly, parliamentarism favours peaceful transition of political power. While the public enjoy the right to vote for the President under presidentialism, removal of president is often criticized of being too difficult when compared to the simple vote of no-confidence process in parliamentarism (Linz, 1990). For instance, despite over a year of impeachment process, President Bill Clinton was not convicted successfully. Public’s frustration over the performance of President, whose power is ineffectively restrained by the legislature at times, may lead to reluctant military intervention, destructing the newly developed democratic system. This was exemplified by the military coup to pull down President Allende of Chile in 1973, in which Allende allegedly abused his political power and impose strict controls on the public (Mainwarang, 1993). With reference to Stepan amp; Skach’s study (1993), presidential democracies were twice more likely to experience military coups. In short, the rigidity of the presidential system leaves little room and long waiting time for prompt readjustment in political system, and thus leaders may be incapable of coping with challenges in time during political transition, possibly causing more political instability than parliamentarism. Lastly, level of civil political participation remains a crucial factor to the success of the consolidation of democracy. It is vital for the public to feel empowered with their vote through the performance of the legislature in setting policy vis-a-vis the executive, so that popular support for the new representative political institution will be sustained (Carey, 1997). Under parliamentarism, development of political parties has flourished, with at least one third of the 34 parliamentary democracies having 3-7 effective political parties in their political systems, in contrast to none with 2. or more in pure presidential democracy (Stepan amp; Skach, 1993). Political party serves as an important and public channel for interest aggregation and articulation, bridging the government and the public. More importantly, the effective functioning of political parties with acknowledged achievements motivates public to be active in politics. Ultimately, democracy is â€Å"rule of peopleâ₠¬ , where people plays an important role in stabilizing the new political system. In spite of all the above reasons, it is difficult to conclude parliamentary system is the universal answer to all new democracies, given the special historical, cultural and socioeconomic factors in every state. Presidential democracy works well in some newly democratized states like South Korea, which is highly regarded as a â€Å"fully functioning modern democracy† (CIA World Factbook, 2009). On the other hand, failure of presidentialism in some countries may not be entirely attributable to the political institution itself only. In the example of Latin America, Shugart (1995) challenged that historical or cultural factors may also be blamed for the failure in developing democracy in the form of presidentialism, based on the fact that most new presidential regimes were especially concentrated in a certain region. All in all, parliamentary and presidential system each has its virtues and vices. While there may not be a universal answer for political development, it is important to give consideration to the unique political and socioeconomic environment of each state.