Teaching Comparative

Presidential democracies

And yet another question that came to my computer.

The question was about the nature of presidential democracies.

A teacher noticed that one textbook said that the presidential system in the USA is very unusual. Another textbook described a fairly large number of of presidential democracies. Most textbooks repeat the generalization that most democratic regimes are parliamentary.

The question was: What is a presidential democracy?

I scratched my head and thought about the differences between parliamentary and presidential systems. I decided that the basic differences involved elections and separation or fusion of power.

In a presidential system, the head of government is elected separately from the legislature. And a president has powers independent of the legislature, although the legislature usually has some checks on the actions of the president (especially the "power of the purse" and the ability to approve major appointments).

In a parliamentary system, the head of government is chosen by the majority of the legislature. The powers of the executive and the legislature are fused. Instead of relying on a separation of power to preserve democracy, the parliamentary system relies on the response of the legislators to public opinion.

So, the USA is a presidential democracy and the UK is a parliamentary democracy.

Iran cannot be either, even though the president is elected separately from the legislature. There's the supreme leader, an unelected power with power over both the executive and the legislature.

Democratic centralism means that the Peoples Republic is not a republic.

So, is Nigeria a presidential democracy? Mexico? Both regimes have presidents elected by national constituencies. But, in practice, they function very differently from the US system. The legislatures in neither country exercises the kind of real power of Congress in Washington, D.C.

Under PRI domination, the Mexican regime was only marginally democratic. Since the election of Vicente Fox, the political system has functioned more like a presidential democracy, but the entrenched dinosaurios still run much of the system.

The Nigerian regime has a nationally-elected president, but political power is so disbursed among traditional leaders, state governors, legislators, the ethnic communities, the elite of the military, and the leaders of the parastatals, it's difficult to describe the actual functioning of the system.

And how about the Russian regime, which was modeled on the French Fifth Republic? The president, head of state, is separately and nationally elected. And there's a head of government chosen by the legislature. But, the Duma has so few checks on presidential power, that it's doesn't fit the textbook definition.

So, are there lots of presidential democracies or only a few?

Here's the answer that Wikipedia offered on 23 January 2008. (It might be different by now.) The map that is offered on Wikipedia comes without documentation or much explanation.

The map asserts that presidential systems are in blue. My interpretation is that parliamentary systems are in red. Hybrid presidential-parliamentary regimes are in yellow. Communist regimes are in brown. Monarchies are purple. Military regimes are in tan. Dependent territories are colored light purple. And gray seems to describe a category of "other."

One line in the Wikipedia article is worth remembering. Referring to presidential and parliamentary regimes, it said, "In reality, elements of both systems overlap."

Ambiguity raises its head again. It's only ugly if you insist inappropriately on right answers. If you want to insist on a right answer, direct your students to the definition in the textbook they are reading. But, remember, other people read other textbooks and other people write exam questions.

---

Labels: concepts, Iran, leadership, legislature, Mexico, Nigeria, politics, Russia, UK

posted by Ken Wedding @ 5:43 AM