Assembly in political terms is a platform for the political
masters to devise solutions to problems at state level. Intensely debated and
deemed a necessity, a perfect power balance mechanism is yet unraveled by the
experts. Some favour unicameralism while
others approve of bicameralism. Similarly, some advocate for presidential
system of democracy while others vouch for parliamentary government.
Assembly acts as a
surrogate between the people and the government and can be classified into
three branches; legislature that makes laws, executive that implements it and judiciary
that interprets it. The principal feature
of parliamentary system is the delicate balance that it offers between the
legislature and executive. This eliminates
political gridlock and allows the representatives in legislature and executive
to engage in fruitful debates. This system
also has the in-built mechanism to overthrow a lousy leader by either vote of
confidence, removal by the party or by the head of state. On the contrary, in presidential system, the
citizens either have to wait for the end of the term or plan a coup if they
wish to bring down the leader. But this
system is relatively efficient in a sense that it is less complex and thus
orders can be implemented faster.
The presidential system operates in the US while the
parliamentary system functions in the UK, allowing the states to work to their
optimal capacity and carve a way as the world superpower. Since both the
systems have pros and cons, it is difficult to conclude as to which one is more
advisable.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point of view on how it is hard to determine which system, parliamentary or presidential, is better. There seems to be no objective method of ranking both. I would like to add that realistically the three branches of the government can be tangled with each other - each branch may be performing tasks which aren't relevant to its definition.
ReplyDelete