Session 10- Political executives in Parliamentary government vs. Presidential government

The executive’s role in a state, although varying due to the wide range of duties performed in different political systems, fundamentally refers to those institutions responsible for governing a political community, applying its binding decisions.

This role greatly differs in two cases, namely in parliamentary government and the presidential government. Examples of a parliamentary government include Britain and Germany, in which cases the chief executive emerges from the assembly and experiences an unfixed tenure, unlike that in Presidential governments where the chief executive is chosen by popular elections (as in the case of USA.

Another important feature concerning political executives is the chief executive’s separation from legislative institutions in presidential governments, while parliamentary forms include the appointment of other executives in the form of cabinet by the Prime Minister.

While the role of political executives in the parliamentary form may result in a stable and decisive form of government in the case of a single party, it can also be the reason for a fragmented government with the existence of a coalition. Similarly, even though it may be easier to match through imitation, it can be a possible cause of tyranny in the state.

Alongside this stands the presidential government, in which strong and decisive leadership appears as a result of the role played by political executives. There are strong checks and balances which may ensure stability, but there exists the issue of conflicts and gridlocks. Also, the separation of the executive and legislative institutions may result in issues regarding accountability.

It is due to all the reasons mentioned and the issues underlined above that it remains unclear as to which form of government states, more appropriately, the roles of the political executives of the state.