Nepal Parliamentary and Presidential Governments

Nepal

Parliamentary and Presidential governments are both democratic, encouraging eligible voters to fully participate in the election process and civic affairs. One of the main differences between the Parliamentary and the Presidential forms of government is the way the head of state is elected. In a Presidential system, the head of state is elected independently of the congress whereas in a Parliamentary system, the head of state is the head of the majority party in congress. In other words, citizens in a Presidential democracy cast votes for the office of president just as they do in the United States. Even with the Electoral College, the President of the United States is still elected in a separate process from congressional leaders. The President's political party does not reflect the party composition of the Senate or House of Representatives. In a Parliamentary democracy, citizens cast their votes for the party of their choice and not for a specific individual running for the office of Prime Minister. The party with the majority of popular votes will generally be the party of the Prime Minister, who is the chief executive legislator of the state. The Prime Minister is usually elected as the head of his or her party, in elections that are closed to the general public. However, if a parliament shows no clear majority for any political party then the entire legislature may have to vote for a Prime Minister: again in an election closed to the general public. Another way of presenting the differences between Parliamentary and Presidential forms of democratic government is that the legislative and executive branches of a Parliamentary system are more tightly linked than they are in a Presidential one.

Nepal was until very recently classified as a constitutional monarchy. As with other constitutional monarchies like Great Britain, Nepal had both a chief executive legislator and a monarch head of state. However, the King of Nepal recently stepped down in the midst of political turmoil and social strife within the nation. The Nepalese Parliament elected a president to replace the monarch's office as head of state. The president serves in some similar roles as the monarch but is a different type of figurehead with more limited political power.

Nepal currently resembles a parliamentary democracy, albeit one that has experienced tremendous upheaval over the past several years. An overhaul of the government is currently underway, and several factors suggest that Nepal would be best off by adopting a hybrid political system that combines the best of Parliamentary and Presidential democracy. One of the greatest strengths of the Presidential system is the increased potential for checks and balances of power. The office of president is less closely linked to the legislative branch of government, and can even be from a different political party. At the same time, Nepal has a history of parliamentary systems and its closest neighbor India has a well-established parliamentary system too. Preserving the current form of government will ease Nepal's transition from a constitutional monarchy to a constitutional republic. If the nation were to suddenly switch voting procedures and governmental structures, the resulting confusion would threaten to undermine the fledgling system. Furthermore, a large number of Nepalese residents are either connected to or from India and are familiar with its parliamentary system.

A parliamentary system allows for a greater plurality of voices in the legislative branch of government. Nepal is an extraordinarily diverse country, with no one ethnic group comprising more than 15.5% of the nation's population (CIA). The recent political strife in Nepal is partly rooted in the strong Maoist presence there. Maoist demands for political representation in parliament was finally granted during the recent turmoil in 2007 (CIA). Nepal's main considerations when composing its new constitution and attendant form of government include maintaining political stability, permitting a plurality of voices to be heard in congress, and to prevent political corruption. The difficult process of forging a new state can be made easier by a conscientious constitution that clearly outlines the roles and duties of each branch and office of government. A system of checks and balances will reduce the potential for corruption or coup. Creating a separate office of president not unlike the Israeli model will allow Nepal to achieve its ultimate social, political and economic goals better than if it were to rely on what can often become an instable parliamentary system. The main drawbacks with parliaments in diverse states include the possibilities of impasse and instability. A parliament elected by a pluralistic voting public might never exhibit a majority party. The resulting parliament might have trouble drafting legislation, and as party compositions change so might the Prime Minister. Moreover, unstable parliaments sometimes lead to coalitions that compromise the values and beliefs of constituents.