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?
   

Battle between states and federal government

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case determining the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This section of the 1965 federal law requires approval from the Justice Department before any changes can be made in how elections are conducted in 16 states with histories of discrimination against minority voters.

A utility district in Texas that evidences no history of discrimination is challenging the law and the Obama administration is defending it. In 2006, a majority of both parties in Congress voted to extend the requirement for 25 more years and President George W. Bush signed the measure into law. States that have reversed government-sponsored discrimination object to remaining under federal supervision.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has heard a challenge to the advance-approval provision, but the addition of two new Justices, Alito and Roberts, give opponents to Section 5 hope that this time it will rule against the federal government.

Teaching Current Events with the Constitution:

Ask students to reflect critically on their own communities. Do they think that voter discrimination is ancient history? Or do they think there is still a role for the national government in supervising states’ changes to their election procedures?

Students should review the constitutional amendments that guarantee the right to vote to minorities and determine for themselves whose responsibility it is to ensure that the rights are protected.