Does Presidentialism lead to democratic instability?

This paper aims to portray whether the presidential system encourages political instability by evaluating both the theory and practice of the presidential system itself. This paper also compares presidential with parliamentary, and states why parliamentarism seems more stable.

The core argument is the presidential system appears ambiguous on both theoretical and practical levels. Presidentialism, theoretically, ensures that the president cannot be impeached by the legislature and establishes president as chief executive for a fixed term.

Thus allowing the president to carry out his duties without interference from parliament. Yet, among the issues that have never been discussed and debated in presidential systems is how to manage executive and legislative powers. As institutions that both receive a direct mandate from the people, both will almost certainly base their executive-legislative structures on the logic of obtaining that mandate.

Practically speaking, the situation is far worse. Problems with the presidential system typically occur when it is combined with a multi-party system, particularly one with a high level of fragmentation and polarization.

Presidential and multiparty systems are not only a “difficult combination,” but also create opportunities for executive and legislative deadlocks, which contribute to the instability of presidential democracy.

In this paper, I will start with a short overview about the origin of presidential and what makes its difference with parliamentary. Subsequently, I will address the debate in Linz’s argument about the perils of presidential in general.

Eventually, I will conclude this paper by presenting my core argument and outlining the whole plan to extend the argument through would Chilean democracy in the Allende era survive if presidential institutions change to parliamentary ones?

Presidential in a glance

In terms of the historical evolution of the theory of forms of government, presidential takes on a republican dimension as opposed to monarchy. Whereas in a republican order, it takes the dimension of democracy as opposed to an aristocracy.

An important concept of a presidential system is the separation of powers. Trias politica initiated by John Locke became the heart of the presidential concept. There are three branches of power, namely executive, legislative and judicial.

Separation of powers is necessary to prevent undesirable events from occurring in the country’s dynamic life. Because of this division of power, even though there is a large concentration of authority in the hands of a unipersonal organ, namely the presidency, which can easily lead to the presidency leading to authoritarian deviation, the presidency should still be able to meet democratic expectations.

In general, a presidential system has six characteristics that distinguish it from other types of government, such as parliamentary and semi-presidential systems.

To begin, the president leads the government and state directly. Secondly, the president is appointed as the executive body by the people or the people’s representative body. Thirdly, the president has the authority, or what is referred to as the prerogative, to appoint and dismiss ministers or officials at the ministerial level[1].

Fourthly, the minister reports directly to the president. Fifth, the president is not accountable to the legislative authority. Lastly, the president cannot be removed from office by the legislature, making him the chief executive with a fixed term of office.

In Indonesia and several other countries, legislative impeachment of the president is permitted, but it is extremely rare, as impeachment can only be carried out in extraordinary circumstances.

The Perils of Presidential

Experts in comparative politics, such as Juan J Linz (1994), warn that presidential democracy is a risky institutional choice, particularly for a country in the midst of a democratic transition.

Linz demonstrates the possibility of dual democratic legitimacy as a logical consequence of the separation of executive and legislative powers in the presidency, but also the divided government, which has implications for the conflict and instability of presidential democracy itself.

Presidential elections in presidential systems tend to apply “winner take all”. The unequal distribution of power leaves polarization and tension in society. Previously, Linz (1985) argues that presidentialism is less likely than parliamentarism to maintain a stable democratic regime.

Presidential schemes are even more risky when combined with extreme multiparty systems. The consequence of the presidential-multiparty combination is the election of a “minority president” — a president with a relatively small political base — and political fragmentation without a majority in parliament.

This reality provides an opportunity for the legislative power to “interfere” with the President which leads to conflicts between the Executive and the Legislative.

Scott Mainwaring (1993) warns of the potential for political deadlock if presidentialism is combined with a multiparty system. Due to the dynamic nature of the voices or policy directions in parliament, it will be difficult for the president to fully govern the government. This has resulted in a stalemate between the president and parliament in a number of countries.

This is supported by evidence by shows that Parliamentary systems live longer. For the 1946–2003 period, the average lifespan for a presidential democracy was 24 years versus 58 years for parliamentary systems. Stable democracies tend to be parliamentary.

Of 24 countries with 30 years of uninterrupted democracy between 1959–1989, 18 had parliamentary systems. Furthermore, presidential systems tend to occur in developing countries such as Latin America, Africa, South East Asia, Poorer, new democracies, weaker states, Countries with histories of military dictatorships[2].

In some countries such as Bolivia, Colombia, Peru, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Kazakhstan, etc, the Presidential system tends to be used by the presidents to carry abusive power by extending the term of office of the president by changing the constitution.

Shifting from Presidential to Parliamentary System: The Chile’s Experience

Chile’s experience under the Salvador Allende regime demonstrates how a presidential government and a multiparty system could result in conflict, polarization, and political instability.

So, if Chile were able to change its system from presidential to parliament system, could Chile’s democracy survive? The answer could be a low probability to survive. If a parliamentary system was implemented, the situation will be even worse.

Especially considering the fact that polarized internal political situation and the superpowers trying to intervene in Chile’s politics under the Allende regime. It depends on how Allende consolidates his power with legislative power. If he got majority supports in parliament, democracy could survive.

Mainwaring dan Shugart (2012) is less optimistic about the outcomes of a transition to parliamentary government in countries with undisciplined parties.

Parties that lack discipline wreak havoc on parliamentary systems. Converting to parliamentary government in countries with unruly parties risks exacerbating problems of governability and instability unless both party and electoral legislation are changed concurrently.

Deadlock also occurs in the parliamentary system. Namely, when there is no political party that has a majority in the parliament as experienced by Belgium[3]. As a result, the cabinet was easily given a vote of no confidence by the parliament. The government is deadlocked and elections must be held again.

Any transition to parliamentary government, then, would require painstakingly designing a patchwork of institutions to maximize the likelihood of success. Institutional combinations are critical in both presidential and parliamentary systems.

Nevertheless, Chile’s democratic problems were not only about institutional design but also high political tension both internal and external, Allende governed a highly polarized country undergoing modernization, with a very active military who willing to seize power and intervention of the superpowers who want to overthrow the socialist government of Allende[4].

To sum up this paper, although the presidency is theoretically more stable, because the legislature does not have the authority to override the president, to a some extent, the presidential system contributes to political instability when confronted with a multi-party system and an elected president with minor legislative support.

References

Linz, J. (1985). Democracy: Presidential or Parliamentary Does it Make a Difference? . Juan Linz, Presidentialism, and Democracy. https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNABJ524.pdf.

Linz, J. J., & Valenzuela, A. (1994). The failure of presidential democracy: Comparative perspectives. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Mainwaring, S., & Shugart, M. S. (1997). Juan Linz, Presidentialism, and Democracy: A Critical appraisal. Comparative Politics, 29(4), 449. https://doi.org/10.2307/422014

[1] Class lecture 12

[2] Class Lecture 13

[3]Class Lecture 13

[4] Lecture 13