Presidentialism and the Alternatives

Presidentialism

Lijphart, a. (1991). Constitutional choices for new democracies. Journal of Democracy 2(1): 72-84.

In "Constitutional Choices for New Democracies," Lijphart argues that the parliamentary/proportional representational model offers clear advantages over the alternatives available to architects of a democratic system of government. The "architects of new democratic constitutions" should take into consideration variables like ethnic minority representation and the need for reductions in unemployment when crafting their political policies (Lijphart, 1991, p. 72). With regards to most of the meaningful variables impacting developing nations or those in need of dramatic political restructuring, the author argues that "the combination of parliamentarism with proportional representation should be an especially attractive one," (Lijphart, 1991, p. 72).

To prove the point, the author provides a great degree of theoretical background and uses ample examples. The author points out the importance of electoral procedures and how they affect proportional representation in government. Moreover, the author points out key biases that stem from rigid frames of reference. For example, the author speaks on the different emphases on "capacity to govern" or perceived stability versus "representativeness" or fairness for minority citizens (Lijphardt, 1991, p. 77). The only glaring weaknesses with the Lijphardt (1991) study are its lack of experimental data collection or research methodologies. The author relies heavily on conjecture and example. Moreover, Lijphardt (1991) makes generalizations about nations that either are or will be anachronistic.

In spite of these weaknesses, the Lijphardt (1991) study is valuable in pointing out the general reasons why a parliamentary system may be superior for many situations. Especially situations in which a nation-state comprises multiple ethnic groups, and needs to ensure income equity, a proportional representation and parliamentary system would work well. A government characterized by a proportional representation of the populace in government will facilitate minority representation, allow for greater participation of women, and also foster greater overall voter participation. After all, Lijphardt (1991) points out that parliamentary systems with proportional representation also boast the highest voter turnouts.

Gerring, J., Thacker, S.C., & Morena, C. (2008). Are parliamentary systems better? Comparative Political Studies 42(327).

To evaluate the practical effects of presidential vs. parliamentary rule, Gerring, et al. (2008) use a complex global data set. The hypothesis of the research is that the type of executive governance used does have concrete and measurable effects on policy and policy outcomes. The researchers use 14 indicators to measure the dependent variables including those within the categories of political development, economic development, and human development. An analysis of the data reveals favoritism for parliamentary systems because of their association with general "good governance," (Gerring, et al., 2008, p. 328). The authors conclude that parliamentary systems are "a more reliable vehicle for good public policy," (p. 353).

The study has several methodological weaknesses that prevent it from being an authoritative source of data on the subject. Most of the findings reveal correlative, rather than causal, connections between the dependent variables and the type of executive structure in government. Moreover, the potential of intervening and extraneous variables has an adverse effect on internal and external validity. The authors go to great lengths, however, explaining each data set and set of correlative relationships. Assumptions are rooted in prior research or theory. A few more examples of exceptions to rules, and explanations of those exceptions would help bolster the overall impact of the Gerring et al. (2008) study.