| Papers [1-15] of 58 :: [Page 1 of 4] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 —> | Search results on "PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM": |
|
|
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.
| |
|
British Parliamentary System, 2002.
Discussion of the British parliamentary system and the Gaulist constitution of the French Fifth Republic.
650 words (approx. 2.6 pages), 4 sources, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
These essays discuss the parliamentary system in Britain which is characterized by the fusion of power, and the effectiveness of the Gaullist constitution of the French Fifth Republic.
| |
|
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 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.
| |
|
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."
| |
|
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."
| |
|
Systems of Government, 2002.
A comparison between the presidential and parliamentary systems of government, using the American and Canadian systems as examples.
2,400 words (approx. 9.6 pages), 9 sources, $ 89.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper presents a comparison and contrast of the presidential and parliamentary systems of government in terms of their key characteristics as well as their strengths and weaknesses. It finds that, to varying degrees, both systems are concerned with the promotion of accountability, responsibility and efficiency. Each system has a leader, the President and the Prime Minister, respectively, and power is held on the basis of popular support through political constituencies that are generally equal in population. A major difference between these two systems of government is that while the Senate in the American presidential system of government is an important and integral part of the day-to-day functioning of the system, the same cannot be said for the Senate in the Canadian parliamentary system. A major weakness of the American presidential system of government is that the legislative process can be slow and cumbersome.
| |
|
Systems of Government, 2007.
A comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of the parliamentary and presidential systems of government.
2,358 words (approx. 9.4 pages), 9 sources, APA, $ 72.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper analyzes the relative strengths and weaknesses of the parliamentary and presidential systems of government. It discusses various aspects of each form of government and compares their pros and cons. The paper specifically focuses on the issue of separation of power or the ability to limit the amount of power awarded to the head of state. The paper presents examples primarily from the United States and Canada.
From the Paper
"Another important difference between Presidential and Parliamentary systems of government has to do with the relative ease with which heads of state may be dismissed. As we noted, in a Presidential system of government, presidents serve for a fixed period of time. In practice, this tends to mean that a president must be utterly outrageous in order to be ousted - and even then, he may sometimes manage to cling onto power. For example, Richard Nixon is the only American president who has ever been forced to resign. Other American presidents have managed to survive massive scandals. These include President John F. Kennedy, who survived a scandal over the untimely death by drug overdose of actress Marilyn Monroe in 1962; Bill Clinton, a married man and president who weathered the embarrassment of being publicly exposed as having had oral sex with an aide, Monica Lewinsky (Sands, 2000); and currently President Bush, who not only survived but was able to be elected for a second term of office, despite having lied to his people about the existence of so-called weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. (Roper, 2004)"
| |
|
Post-Communist Nations' Transition To Democracy, 2002.
Compares the presidential and parliamentary systems of democracy and examines some Eastern European countries that are switching from a presidential system to a parliamentary one.
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 3 sources, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at the system of presidential and parliamentary democratic governing and uses the models of the United Kingdom and the United States to illustrate the differences. The paper also looks at the Eastern European Countries who are now in the process of changing their democratic leadership from presidential to parliamentary governing.
| |
|
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..."
| |
|
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)"
| |
|
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."
| |
|
Parliamentary Form of Government, 2003.
Discusses the political systems of France and Great Britain.
1,575 words (approx. 6.3 pages), 4 sources, $ 55.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Contends that both France and Great Britain have fractious systems that divide multi-party governing bodies resulting in unstable governments of short durations. Examines Great Britain's parliamentary democracy.
From the Paper
"The world plays host to many forms of government; an interesting hypothesis to consider today pertains to the parliamentary system, as is used in Great Britain, and the mixed presidential-parliamentary system..."
| |
|
Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK, 2003.
A discussion on whether the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union destroyed the legal convention of Parliamentary Supremacy.
1,450 words (approx. 5.8 pages), 18 sources, MLA, $ 48.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper assesses whether the traditionalist views held by Dicey, Blackstone and Jennings et al, still hold weight in contemporary Britain following enactment of the European Communities Act and the Factortame Merchant Shipping Case. It describes the traditionalist conventions, such as the enrolled bill rule, Heuston's manner and form thesis and implied repeal. It then looks at the UK court's attitude to the development of the common law in relation to these principles according to the primacy of European legislation and asks whether the British constition has been indirectly amended as a result.
From the Paper
"However, a further challenge to the traditional view has come from the UK?s membership of the European Union. The European Communities Act incorporates EC law into the UK legal system providing the mechanism by which EC law is incorporated, gives powers to government to implement EC law, provides that UK courts should interpret all legislation to avoid conflict and that they should determine disputes in accordance with the principles laid down by the European Court of Justice. It is the final point that has the strongest implications, in that the ECJ has decided in Internationale Handelsgesellschaft that EC law takes priority over incompatible national law. The principle was to be upheld in the Factortame case , where the House of Lords disapplied the Merchant Shipping Act when granting interim relief to Spanish fishermen in breach of UK law."
| |
|
Parliamentary Control over Administrative Law, 2008.
An analysis of administrative law in India and the control that the parliament of India has over administrative rule-making.
4,583 words (approx. 18.3 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 118.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper analyzes parliamentary control over administrative rule-making in India. It describes the various classifications of administrative action and then briefly defines the meaning of administrative rule-making. Next, the paper provides some insight into the concept of why administrative rule-making is necessary in the administration of the country. The paper then looks at the kinds of parliamentary control imposed over the administrative rule-making so as to keep a perfect balance between its power of delegation and its ultimate authority. Finally, the paper compares the situation in India and the United States.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Chapter 1- Administrative Rule-Making: Meaning and Concept
Chapter 2 - Parliamentary control over Administrative Rule-Making
Chapter 3- A Comparative Study of the Parliamentary Control over Administrative Rule-Making: India and USA
Conclusion
From the Paper
"The position of our country regarding the same has already been discussed in the previous chapter. In this chapter, the same shall be discussed regarding USA. The position in the United States is significantly different. For the U.S. Congress operates under a written constitution and the courts have the authority to interpret the Constitution and thereby declaring a congressional ruling unconstitutional if it conflicts with their views of the Constitution. Also the doctrine of 'delegaus non potest delegare' holds in United States, which means that a delegate cannot further delegate its powers. Thus, the Congress being a delegate of the people cannot further entrust its powers to any other agency."
|
|
|
