This paper critically evaluates two scholarly works addressing constitutional design for new democracies: Lijphart's (1991) theoretical argument for parliamentary systems with proportional representation, and Gerring, Thacker, and Morena's (2008) empirical comparative study using 14 governance indicators. The review summarizes each study's central claims, assesses methodological strengths and weaknesses, and draws broader conclusions about which executive system better serves developing nations. Both sources converge on the parliamentary-proportional representation model as superior for promoting minority representation, voter participation, and overall good governance, while acknowledging that local and regional diversity remains an unresolved complication.
The paper models comparative critical annotation: rather than simply describing what each source says, the writer evaluates internal validity, identifies correlative versus causal claims, and situates each study's findings within real-world constitutional design decisions. This is a graduate-level skill especially valuable in political science literature reviews.
The paper is organized source by source. Each source receives a two-part treatment: first a summary of its thesis and evidence, then a critical evaluation of its methodology and conclusions. The final section draws a synthetic conclusion that both sources favor parliamentary-proportional systems while leaving the question of regional diversity open. This structure is clean and easy to follow for academic audiences.
Two influential studies — Lijphart (1991) and Gerring, Thacker, and Morena (2008) — address a central question in comparative politics: which type of executive system, presidential or parliamentary, better serves new and developing democracies? Both works converge on the parliamentary model as superior, though they arrive at this conclusion through different means and with different limitations.
In "Constitutional Choices for New Democracies," Lijphart (1991) argues that the parliamentary system combined with proportional representation 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 regard 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 support this point, the author provides a substantial theoretical background and draws on ample examples. He highlights the importance of electoral procedures and how they affect proportional representation in government. He also identifies key biases that stem from rigid frames of reference. For example, Lijphart discusses the different emphases placed on "capacity to govern" or perceived stability versus "representativeness" or fairness for minority citizens (Lijphart, 1991, p. 77).
The primary weaknesses of the Lijphart (1991) study are its lack of experimental data collection and formal research methodology. The author relies heavily on conjecture and illustration rather than empirical evidence. Furthermore, Lijphart (1991) makes generalizations about nations that either are or risk becoming anachronistic over time.
Despite these weaknesses, the study is valuable in identifying the general reasons why a parliamentary system may be superior in many circumstances. This is especially true in situations where a nation-state comprises multiple ethnic groups and needs to ensure income equity — conditions under which a proportional representation and parliamentary system would function well. A government characterized by proportional representation facilitates minority representation, allows for greater participation of women, and fosters greater overall voter participation. As Lijphart (1991) notes, parliamentary systems with proportional representation also tend to boast the highest voter turnouts.
To evaluate the practical effects of presidential versus parliamentary rule, Gerring, Thacker, and Morena (2008) employ a complex global data set. Their central hypothesis is that the type of executive governance used has concrete and measurable effects on policy and policy outcomes. The researchers use 14 indicators to measure dependent variables across three broad categories: political development, economic development, and human development. An analysis of the data reveals a favorable association between parliamentary systems and general good governance (Gerring et al., 2008, p. 328). The authors conclude that parliamentary systems represent "a more reliable vehicle for good public policy" (p. 353).
The Gerring et al. (2008) research is ambitious and as thorough as the available data allow. The dependent variables are meaningful, particularly because the authors frame the purpose of their work as providing guidance to budding democracies on constitutional development. This process — referred to as "constitutional engineering" — involves determining whether a presidential or parliamentary system will best serve a developing nation. Access to hard empirical evidence is essential here, as the issues at stake may be humanitarian, economic, or political. Although both authors ultimately conclude that parliamentary systems offer a superior means of creating good, flexible governance, the question of how to account for local or regional diversity remains an important and unresolved consideration.
You’re 80% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.