Parliamentary and Presidential Systems of Government

An estimated 60 percent of Iraqis voted during the 2010 parliamentary elections on Monday. In a parliamentary democracy like Iraq’s, parliament has sovereignty over the head of the government, the prime minster. The prime minster is usually the leader of the political party that has either won the majority of seats in parliament or has the most seats without holding a majority. In the case of the latter, the political party with the most seats in parliament must form a coalition government, which includes members of other political parties. Many European, Middle Eastern, and South Asian nations follow the parliamentary system, with Britain’s being that most famous.

The political party of the current Iraqi Prime Minster, Nouri Maliki, is not expected to retain a majority of the seats in that country’s parliament but will probably still hold the most seats and thus would be forced to form a coalition government.

During the 2008 election cycle in the United States, almost 62 percent of eligible voters went to the polls to elect the 44th President of the United States. They also handed the Democratic Party a majority of the seats in both houses of Congress. Some believe the Democrats are in danger of losing their majorities in Congress during the mid-term elections this November, but no matter the result, in a presidential system, Barack Obama would still be President of the United States.

Questions to Consider

1. Which system, parliamentary or presidential, is more consistent with democratic ideals?


2. Which system provides for more accountability to the voters?


3. Why have more democracies adopted the parliamentary system than the presidential system?


4. Would a parliamentary system necessitate more political parties?


5. Would having fewer political parties mean a more stable system of government?