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.

Tags:british, parliamentary, system

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.

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.

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. "

Tags:government, international, parliament

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."

Tags:parliamentary, presidential, india

Abstract
The paper relates that comparing parliamentary and presidential forms of government reveals that both systems have a number of strengths and weaknesses. The paper discusses how one of the main strengths of a presidential form of government is that the president is directly elected by nationwide vote, which gives him more legitimacy to govern. In contrast, paper explains that the prime minister in parliamentary forms of government is selected by his party, so supporters of that party have no choice but to vote for him, which lessens his legitimacy.

From the Paper
"Comparing parliamentary and presidential forms of government reveals that both systems have a number of strengths and weaknesses. One of the main strengths of a presidential form of government is that the president is directly elected by nationwide vote, which gives him more legitimacy to govern. In contrast, the prime minister in parliamentary forms of government is selected by his party, so supporters of that party have no..."

Tags:parliamentary, and, presidential

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."

Tags:goverment, parliamentary, presidential

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.

Abstract
This paper explains that, before the Europeans arrived in New Zealand, the Maoris had their own rules and laws; however, once the Europeans came a legal system, based on the English legal system, was put in order to ensure that the country ran properly. Next, the author presents an overview of the establishment and evolution of the New Zealand legal system as of today. The paper concludes that the New Zealand legal system is moving away from the traditional English system of law to its own unique, system that abolishes the Privy Council and replaces it with a Supreme Court. This paper is attractively formatted with many colored pictures and maps.

Table of Contents:
Contents Page
Pre European Maori Law and Dispute Resolution
Introduction
Mana
Tikanga
Rangatira
Tapu
Hara, Noa and Rahui
Take Tupuna and Take Whenua Tuku
Take Tupuna
Take Whenua Tuku
Utu and Muru
The Effect of English Heritage on the New Zealand Legal System
Introduction
Customary Law
Example
Common Law
Example
Equity Law
Example
The Magna Carta (1215)
Bill of Rights (1689)
The Social Contract & Parliamentary Government
An Overview of the Establishment and Development, to Date, of the New Zealand Legal System
Introduction
The Treaty of Waitangi
Problem One: Sovereignty
Problem Two: Chieftainship
Problem Three: Buying & Selling Land
The New Zealand Constitution Act 1852
The Constitutional Act 1986
Part One: The Sovereign
Part Two: The Executive
Part Three: The Legislative
Part Four: The Judiciary
The Crimes Act 1961
Part One: Jurisdiction
Part Two: Punishment
Part Three: Matters of Justification or Excuse
Consumers Guarantees Act 1993
Perspectives on the Current Future Development of the New Zealand Legal System
Introduction
The Importance of the Treaty of Waitangi - Its Influence on New Zealand's Legal System
Moving Away From the English Basis of Law

From the Paper
"From the first European settlers, to the Treaty of Waitangi, to present day; New Zealand has had a legal system which has been ever changing for many years now. However, now it is time to look to the future, and see what is in store for New Zealand, where its legal system is heading, and how documents like the Treaty of Waitangi will have relevance for us in years to come.
"The Treaty of Waitangi is New Zealand's most important document, and this will probably never change. Today, it can be described as a living document, whose basic principles can be applied to any age. In the beginning, the Treaty's main focus was to allow the people of New Zealand, both Maori and Pakeha, to live peacefully with each other. However, due to simple translation problems, arguments occurred, and both parties lost sight of what it was that they originally set out to achieve. Because of this, the last hundred years have been rife with controversy over settlements for Maori, as they have wanted compensation form the Crown for the promises they do not believe were met.
"The establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal in 1975, is perhaps the first step in resolving disputes between the Crown and Maori, and this has had a direct influence to New Zealand's legal system, as decisions made by the Tribunal have often gone on to effect legislation being changed in Parliament."

Tags:chieftains, right of land, customary law, rousseau treaty

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."

Tags:comparative, kingdom, politics, states, united, britain, politics