| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "PARLIAMENTARY PRESIDENTIAL DEMOCRACY": |
|
|
Parliamentary vs. Presidential Democracy, 2003.
An examination of the differences and similarities between parliamentary and presidential democracy.
2,300 words (approx. 9.2 pages), 11 sources, APA, $ 79.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper studies the various forms of democracy found today in the post-Communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe. The paper compares and contrasts parliamentary and presidential democracy and explains why the parliamentary form is more appealing to these post-Communist nations.
From the Paper
"According to Reiter and Stam, the driving force behind the new wave of democratization stems from the belief that liberal democracy brings with it at least three promises: freedom..."
| |
|
Parliamentary vs Presidential, 2005.
A comparison of the Parliamentary and Presidential systems and the history of both.
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 4 sources, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper reviews the Parliamentary and Presidential systems, the two basic forms of representative government. According to the paper, both systems represent the people of the country by means of democratic choice and freedom. The Parliamentary system originated in Great Britain and the Presidential system, in the United States.
From the Paper
"The two basic forms of representative government are the Parliamentary and Presidential systems. As both of these systems are representative, they both incorporate democracy, and freedom for their people. Of the two systems, the Parliamentary system is the most common, having originated in Great Britain and then been exported around the world as it developed its Empire. This was how India acquired its Parliamentary system of government. The Presidential system is used by the USA, and many countries in South America."
| |
|
Parliamentary and Presidential Forms of Government, 2005.
A look at parliamentary and presidential forms of government, and the issues with and advantages of both systems.
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 4 sources, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This is a brief essay that provides an overview of the major differences and similarities between two types of government; parliamentary and presidential. The essay draws from current as well historical events to demonstrate these two types of governments and how the general public accesses the electoral process. European examples are also presented to provide world context.
From the Paper
"Makeshift coalitions aside, here in Canada the prime minister is the political party leader who manages to get the most MPs elected to parliament. In the United States, the president appeals to the voters for more direct support through an electoral-college system. The advantage, in the case of the U.S., is that voters feel a greater sense of impact by casting ballots directly for the man who they feel should be president. Canadians, on the other hand, like those engaged in other parliamentary systems, are sometimes forced to hold their noses while they vote for a less desirable MP in order to indirectly vote for their prime minister."
| |
|
Presidential Democracy vs. Other Forms of Government, 2000.
A discussion about which political system is the best.
2,014 words (approx. 8.1 pages), 1 source, $ 63.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the advantages of a presidential democracy over other forms of government such as a parliamentary democracy or authoritarian government.
From the Paper
"Because we live in a democracy (specifically, a presidential democracy) we see the flaws in other forms of government. We know that there are certain rights that should be guaranteed and protected by the government and most Americans view democracy as the best political system in existence. However, if we were living in a country that was relatively economically backward and had a different type of political culture, we might not consider democracy the best system to govern the people. When debating which system is the ideal one for country, tradeoffs are involved. Sacrifices must be made to formulate the best governmental situation. "
| |
|
Parliamentary and Presidential Systems, 2002.
Compares and contrasts parliamentary systems, specifically Canada, and presidential systems.
2,400 words (approx. 9.6 pages), 5 sources, $ 89.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper considers the assertion that the executive branch of the Canadian parliamentary system has become too independent of the legislature and too powerful. It concludes that party discipline and the growth of the Prime Minister's Office have both acted to increase the power of the executive in the Canadian parliamentary system.
| |
|
Russian Presidential Power and Democracy, 2005.
An overview of the powers of the Russian presidency and their implications for democracy.
2,780 words (approx. 11.1 pages), 11 sources, MLA, $ 82.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper gives an overview of some of the powers at the disposal of the president and how they have created serious implications for the development and consolidation of democracy. It starts with a brief discussion about the Soviet Union's legacy and contribution to the Russian presidential system. It also looks at how the presidency arose in Russia and covers Yeltsin's presidential abuses and powers as well as Putin's.
From the Paper
"Powerful executives have traditionally been at the helm of Russian politics. The tsars were at the peak of a steep pyramid of power, only God superseding their authority. Willerton (39-40) contends that the custom of having a strong executive head-ing the country bled over into the Soviet period, with execu-tives like Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev occupying much of their time with the purpose of consolidating power within the party-state system. The General Secretary of the Communist Party was the country's senior-most executive, holding broad powers of supervision over other secretaries and subordinate bodies."
| |
|
Presidential and Parliamentary Systems, 2002.
Compares presidential and parliamentary forms of democratic government.
1,900 words (approx. 7.6 pages), 8 sources, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses in detail the similarities and differences of the two systems as well as their strengths and weaknesses and concludes with an observation of why some states are more likely to choose a presidential system as opposed to a parliamentary system.
| |
|
Presidential and Parliamentary Systems Compared, 2000.
An argument as to why Parliamentary systems more accurately reflect democratic ideals with respect to responsiveness of the government and policy outputs, despite their disadvantages.
1,382 words (approx. 5.5 pages), 3 sources, $ 46.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The trend toward democratization has led to fewer authoritarian governments, and more governments where constituents have a voice in the ruling of the nation. The forms which a democratic government can take are manifold in number. Democratic governments, generally, take two basic forms; governments are either primarily parliamentary or they are primarily presidential, though many new governments are conglomerations of the two forms. While both systems have benefits and drawbacks, the parliamentary system is, clearly, superior. Parliamentary systems more accurately reflect democratic ideals with respect to responsiveness of the government and policy outputs. Further, the executive in a parliamentary government, the Prime Minister, is superior, in function, to the executive of a presidential system, the President. Though the parliamentary system is, on the whole, superior to the presidential system, it must be acknowledged that the parliamentary system has clear disadvantages. "
| |
|
Presidential and Parliamentary Governments, 2007.
A comparison of the executive branch of the US government and the executive branch of the German government.
2,078 words (approx. 8.3 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 65.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper explains that the essential difference between the US system of government and the German system is due to the fact that the US political system follows the presidential model, while the German political system follows the parliamentary model. The paper provides specific comparisons between the executive branches in Germany and the USA and concludes that the American system is preferable.
From the Paper
"In the USA's presidential system, it is key that the executive and legislative branches of government are separate. This system is designed to ensure that power is widely dispersed, rather than concentrated in the hands of just a few people. This puts a check and balance on power, so that a tiny minority cannot become too powerful and exploitative. The essence of this separation in the American system is those who make the laws (the legislature) are different people from those who execute them (the executive). By contrast, the essence of Germany's parliamentary system is that the legislature and the executive are compelled to agree with each other - in fact they are welded into one body, lead by the Bundeskanzler (Federal Chancellor). (Lijphart; Calabresi)"
| |
|
The U.S. Presidential and British Parliamentary Systems, 1999.
A look at how the systems of the world's two most stable democracies differ, especially in how they derive their authority from the people.
974 words (approx. 3.9 pages), 3 sources, $ 34.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Although the need for government to have leadership that provides direction is universal among states, the form that the government leadership assumes varies. Government structure varies significantly between the United States and Great Britain, despite that each is a democracy and share a common history. In fact, the common history of the United States and Great Britain suggests reasons to explain the broad differences between the governments of each respective state. In the wake of the American Revolution, the people of the United States rejected the forms and institutions, most notably a monarchy and Parliament, of British government as well as British sovereignty. Possessing a democratic presidential government, the United States has two separately elected agencies of government. The executive and legislative branches of the United States, the President and Congress, respectively, both derive their power from the people, whereas in Great Britain only the legislative branch, Parliament, derives its power from the people, as the executive is elected by Members of Parliament, thus effectively combining both branches within a single institution. The Parliamentary system in Great Britain and the Presidential system in the United States both have histories marked by an absence of abject failure, yet neither system can be considered truly perfect. Consequently, the analyst cannot conclude that either system is better; rather, he must recognize that there are merits and faults in both systems. The Parliamentary system tends to legislate efficiently, whereas a presidential system tends toward gridlock. However, the presidential system grants both elected representatives and citizens greater influence in government. The Parliamentary system tends to favor Prime Ministers who have much experience, whereas the Presidential system favors Presidents who are responsive to the general will of the people."
| |
|
Judicial Review vs. Parliamentary Democracy., 2002.
1,400 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 6 sources, $ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Thispaper argues that judicial review per se does not interfere with democratic principles, but the framework in which it operates allows it to circumvent some elements of parliamentary democracy. The author believes that the conflicts between judicial review and parliamentary process occurs first, due to the federalism maintained by majoritarian politics; second, due to contending interests of pressure groups, and finally, due to the fact that judges of the courts are not elected and hence not accountable.
| |
|
A Comparison of Modern Democracy and Classical Athenian Democracy, 2002.
Compares modern constitutional democracies and the democracy of classical Athens.
914 words (approx. 3.7 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 32.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Discusses the major differences between Athenian democracy and modern democracy. Differences include voting and citizenship rights, gender and background bias in the Athenian social and economic system, the type of representation that each society offered and the 'participation factor' in Athens.
From the Paper
"There are several significant differences between modern constitutional democracies and the democracy of classical Athens. Even though the classical Athenian democracy was a major step forward in political thought, at its height there were still many areas in which it was decidedly unlike any democracy existing today. These differences fall into three major categories: differences in who could vote, in the type of representation, and in the overall participation factor.
One major and clearly recognizable difference is that in the Athenian democracy there was only a certain selected element of the population that was allowed to vote. This difference in voting behavior stems from the fact that the Athenian social and economic system was supportive of the suppression of groups of people according to gender and background in ways that are not acceptable in today?s western cultures.
For example, women were not given full rights of citizenship. They were also socially and economically kept in a subservient role to men. Women?s function was seen as primarily that of propagation and managing a household. Women were not allowed access to the marketplace of ideas that was so important to the Athenians.
These conditions set up an interactive cycle between the social and political institutions; since women were regarded as inferior and not deserving of full citizenship, they were not allowed to vote. However, without the ability to vote, it was very unlikely that any of these restrictions would be modified or lifted. The role of women in Greek society was too firmly entrenched to be easily changed."
| |
|
A Comparison of Modern Democracy and Classical Athenian Democracy, 2002.
This paper looks at several significant differences between modern constitutional democracies and the democracy of classical Athens.
864 words (approx. 3.5 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The writer shows that even though the classical Athenian democracy was a major step forward in political thought, at its height there were still many areas in which it was decidedly unlike any democracy existing today. The paper divides these differences into three major categories: differences in who could vote, in the type of representation, and in the overall participation factor.
From the Paper
"One major and clearly recognizable difference is that in the Athenian democracy there was only a certain selected element of the population that was allowed to vote. This difference in voting behavior stems from the fact that the Athenian social and economic system was supportive of the suppression of groups of people according to gender and background in ways that are not acceptable in today?s western cultures."
| |
|
"Democracy?s Discontent" vs. "Democracy in America", 2003.
A comparison of Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" and Michael J. Sandel's "Democracy?s Discontent".
3,845 words (approx. 15.4 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 105.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how Alexis de Tocqueville in "Democracy in America" and Michael J. Sandel in "Democracy?s Discontent" both address issues of democracy, freedom, the role of government, and the good citizen. It looks at how their viewpoints differ because they write at different times of history. De Tocqueville writes at a time when democracy is a novel ideal. Aristocracy has been the main form of government, and this, therefore, plays a major role in his writing. Sandel, on the other hand, deals with contemporary issues such as the global community and the implications of new technology and diminishing boundaries among people.
From the Paper
"De Tocqueville stresses the importance of civil equality in the achievement of true democracy. This equality implies the lack of divisions and barriers between social classes. This is the equality that he sees in American culture as opposed to European culture that still subscribes to the aristocratic means of government. The democratic ideal implies more freedom than would be possible with an aristocratic government: ?Let us suppose that all the people take a part in the government, and that each one of them has an equal right to take a part in it. As no one is different from his fellows, none can exercise a tyrannical power; men will be perfectly free because they are all entirely equal??(De Tocqueville, Book II, Chapter I)."
| |
|
Democracy and the U.S. Constitution: A Discussion of the Successes and Failures of the Founding Fathers in making an Obtainable Democracy, 2000.
After discussing the successes and failures of the founding fathers, the author of the paper concludes that they mostly did a good job, but disputes that America now has a pure democracy.
1,360 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 2 sources, $ 45.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
" A perfect democracy would be a democracy where everyone- the poor, the rich, the weak, the strong- get to have a say in what the government does. Wherein the supreme power ultimately rests with the people. However, this is not reality. Instead, representative democracy can be defined in two ways: the responsible model and the popular model. In the popular model, ordinary people have a great deal of freedom and ability to participate actively in government. In this type, elections express the popular will and determine policies. Examples of this model include the House of Representatives, the Virginia Plan, and citizen initiatives. In the responsible model, citizens play a more passive role. Government officials have a great deal of freedom to act on the behalf of the country as a whole. Elections here, grant popular consent and determine leaders. Examples of this model are the Senate, the New Jersey Plan, and the Supreme Court. Although the people of the United States live in a democracy that has both popular and responsible elements, democracy here has always been more denoted by the popular model. "
|
|
|
