A Canadian political scientist says:"Better a Prime Minister than a President."
Headlines
January, 2024: Majority of voters don't want Biden-Trump rematch.
March, 2024: Pew poll reveal voters dissatisfied with choices.
July, 2024: The election matchup voters dreaded.
Some of the problems and complications in our presidential election are unique to a "presidential system." Today's guest post describes the differences between a parliamentary system and the presidential system we have.
Sandford Borins is a college classmate. He was a "foreign student," in our college years, although Canadians barely register as foreign to Americans, who think of Canada -- when they think of it at all -- as just a friendly tier of states we don't hear about much for some reason. Canada has a parliamentary system. Borins is Professor of Public Management Emeritus at the University of Toronto, having retired in July 2020 after a 45-year academic career.
He maintains a website, https://sandfordborins.com, where he writes about politics -- mostly Canadian politics -- and whatever else is on his mind. This guest post was published there on July 5.
 |
| Borins |
Guest Post by Sandford Borins
President Biden’s disastrous debate performance has sparked agonized discussions among Democratic Party insiders and the American public at large about whether he should contest the election. Beyond that, it should raise questions about the institutional design of the presidency. How is it that a president whose mental acuity is failing can stay in office and indeed run for re-election without being challenged by his own party?
My thesis is that the dysfunction we are now witnessing in Washington would be unlikely to happen in a parliamentary democracy with a prime minister. I’ll begin with the systemic differences between presidents and prime ministers.
The Essential Differences
In a presidential system, the president is elected for a fixed term of office, is not a member of the legislature, and is both head of state and head of government. Examples of countries with presidential systems are the U.S., Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, France, Turkey, and Russia (at least formally).
In a parliamentary system, the prime minister is a member of the legislature and does not have a fixed term of office. The prime minister stays in office as long as their supporters control a majority of the seats in the legislature and as long as they retain the support of their own political party. (I will refer to the prime minister in the plural.) The head of state is either a hereditary monarch or someone chosen independently of the prime minister. The head of state’s responsibilities involve mainly performing ceremonial functions, but also includes the critical role of choosing a prime minister from the party leaders in the legislature. Examples of parliamentary democracies include Canada, the UK, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Israel, Japan, and Australia.
Piercing the Bubble
Presidential systems enable the president to work in their office without being required to regularly meet adversaries and critics. Having press conferences is not a requirement, and Biden has had fewer and fewer. The president delivers speeches, assisted by a teleprompter and without being expected to take questions afterwards. Biden’s discomfiture occurred in a setting his handlers could not control, a formal debate.
Parliamentary democracy requires prime ministers regularly to appear in two key political settings, parliamentary debates and cabinet meetings. Parliamentary debates provide opportunities for the opposition to challenge and embarrass the government. Parliaments include what in Canada is called “question period” and in the UK “question time.” The questions are not informational, but rhetorical, intended to embarrass the Government. An effective prime minister has a command of the facts and the mental agility to sidestep or refute the questions. If a prime minister is losing it, it would become increasingly evident in their performances in question period.
Cabinet meetings are an essential executive function of parliamentary democracy. Some decisions are made by cabinet; in other cases, cabinet decides on proposals that will be presented to the legislature. (Presidents have cabinets, but they do not have formal functions and are not required to meet.) The prime minister chairs the cabinet, a role that also requires a command of the facts and mental acuity. Cabinet meetings, unlike parliamentary debates, are held in secret. If a prime minister is losing it, it would become apparent to the prime minister’s colleagues, who are their supporters, but a few of whom are also their rivals.
Replacing the Prime Minister
If a prime minister’s performance is faltering or if their public support is waning, parliamentary democracy can offer a swift correction. Their parliamentary colleagues can hold an internal vote of confidence and replace them with another member of their party. Different countries with parliamentary systems permit varying levels of engagement by rank-and-file party members in the choice of a leader. The British Conservative Party provides numerous examples of leaders unseated by caucus, including three of its five prime ministers in the fourteen years it held power until yesterday’s election. In 1990 Margaret Thatcher, despite having won three successive elections, was unseated by her colleagues because of her declining popularity.
If the U.S. were a parliamentary democracy, Biden’s diminishing cognitive abilities would have been noticed sooner, and his party would have forced him to step down long before attempting to win re-election, rather than attempting to persuade him to step down in the middle of the campaign. The U.S. is not a parliamentary democracy and is never going to become one. But the counterexample of how things are done in a parliamentary democracy might encourage Americans to think about ways the president’s ability to perform the job could be tested on a demanding – requiring extemporaneity and response to criticism – and an ongoing basis.
Independence Day reminds us that the framers of the American Constitution modeled their leader after a monarch, but with the important constraint of having to be elected. Parliamentary democracy evolved to empower the monarch’s chief adviser, but never confused the prime minister with the monarch.
President Biden’s disastrous debate performance has sparked agonized discussions among Democratic Party insiders and the American public at large about whether he should contest the election. Beyond that, it should raise questions about the institutional design of the presidency. How is it that a president whose mental acuity is failing can stay in office and indeed run for re-election without being challenged by his own party?
My thesis is that the dysfunction we are now witnessing in Washington would be unlikely to happen in a parliamentary democracy with a prime minister. I’ll begin with the systemic differences between presidents and prime ministers.
The Essential Differences
In a presidential system, the president is elected for a fixed term of office, is not a member of the legislature, and is both head of state and head of government. Examples of countries with presidential systems are the U.S., Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, France, Turkey, and Russia (at least formally).
In a parliamentary system, the prime minister is a member of the legislature and does not have a fixed term of office. The prime minister stays in office as long as their supporters control a majority of the seats in the legislature and as long as they retain the support of their own political party. (I will refer to the prime minister in the plural.) The head of state is either a hereditary monarch or someone chosen independently of the prime minister. The head of state’s responsibilities involve mainly performing ceremonial functions, but also includes the critical role of choosing a prime minister from the party leaders in the legislature. Examples of parliamentary democracies include Canada, the UK, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Israel, Japan, and Australia.
Piercing the Bubble
Presidential systems enable the president to work in their office without being required to regularly meet adversaries and critics. Having press conferences is not a requirement, and Biden has had fewer and fewer. The president delivers speeches, assisted by a teleprompter and without being expected to take questions afterwards. Biden’s discomfiture occurred in a setting his handlers could not control, a formal debate.
Parliamentary democracy requires prime ministers regularly to appear in two key political settings, parliamentary debates and cabinet meetings. Parliamentary debates provide opportunities for the opposition to challenge and embarrass the government. Parliaments include what in Canada is called “question period” and in the UK “question time.” The questions are not informational, but rhetorical, intended to embarrass the Government. An effective prime minister has a command of the facts and the mental agility to sidestep or refute the questions. If a prime minister is losing it, it would become increasingly evident in their performances in question period.
Cabinet meetings are an essential executive function of parliamentary democracy. Some decisions are made by cabinet; in other cases, cabinet decides on proposals that will be presented to the legislature. (Presidents have cabinets, but they do not have formal functions and are not required to meet.) The prime minister chairs the cabinet, a role that also requires a command of the facts and mental acuity. Cabinet meetings, unlike parliamentary debates, are held in secret. If a prime minister is losing it, it would become apparent to the prime minister’s colleagues, who are their supporters, but a few of whom are also their rivals.
Replacing the Prime Minister
If a prime minister’s performance is faltering or if their public support is waning, parliamentary democracy can offer a swift correction. Their parliamentary colleagues can hold an internal vote of confidence and replace them with another member of their party. Different countries with parliamentary systems permit varying levels of engagement by rank-and-file party members in the choice of a leader. The British Conservative Party provides numerous examples of leaders unseated by caucus, including three of its five prime ministers in the fourteen years it held power until yesterday’s election. In 1990 Margaret Thatcher, despite having won three successive elections, was unseated by her colleagues because of her declining popularity.
If the U.S. were a parliamentary democracy, Biden’s diminishing cognitive abilities would have been noticed sooner, and his party would have forced him to step down long before attempting to win re-election, rather than attempting to persuade him to step down in the middle of the campaign. The U.S. is not a parliamentary democracy and is never going to become one. But the counterexample of how things are done in a parliamentary democracy might encourage Americans to think about ways the president’s ability to perform the job could be tested on a demanding – requiring extemporaneity and response to criticism – and an ongoing basis.
Independence Day reminds us that the framers of the American Constitution modeled their leader after a monarch, but with the important constraint of having to be elected. Parliamentary democracy evolved to empower the monarch’s chief adviser, but never confused the prime minister with the monarch.
[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your emai go to: https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]
9 comments:
Canada is a delightful country with a population a little over a tenth that of the U.S. and their problems are proportionately smaller, which isn’t to say they don’t have any. One big difference is that slavery and its attendant horrors were never so integral to the Canadian economy. It’s also less militaristic, spending less than half what we do on defense as a percentage of their GDP.
Size matters.
Perhaps if the U.S. were a parliamentary democracy, Biden's diminishing cognitive abilities would have openly acknowledged sooner because there would have been no way to massage reality in the system Professor Borins describes.
They were NOTICED some time ago by many folks on the Right and also, per recent reporting, by establishment/legacy media types and Democratic party insiders who simply kowtowed to a taboo about the emperor's old mental clothes.
That the Wuhan lab was always not only a plausible but likely source of the COVID epidemic is another example of political and journalistic groupthink. And yes, in the GOP bubble Trump is a public-spirited Christian family man.
It pains me to say it, but I've seen LTE in our really good small Local Newspaper directing the Mango Mussolini wannabe in precisely the terms used in your. Post, Mr. Dudgeon.
“That the Wuhan lab was always not only a plausible but likely source of the COVID epidemic…”
Actually, the most widely accepted hypothesis in the scientific community is that the virus naturally emerged from an animal source.
Parliamentary systems just have different failure modes compared to our system. Multiple elections can happen in quick succession if a majority does not form. The government can fall at any time, which is not necessarily good for continuity.
Besides, changing the United States to a parliamentary system would have to happen via a constitutional amendment, so it’s not going to happen. You might as well wish for God Almighty to come down and tell Joe Biden to drop out of the race.
A New York-based neurologist who specializes in treating Parkinson’s disease suggested Monday that President Biden is exhibiting “classic features of neurodegeneration” as speculation swirls about his political future.
Dr. Tom Pitts made his assessment based on Biden’s public appearances, while the White House faced questions about why another Parkinson’s expert visited the executive mansion eight times in an eight-month stretch last year and early this year.
“I could have diagnosed him from across the mall,” Pitts told NBC News Now’s “Top Story with Tom Llamas.”
“I’m a Democrat, it’s just like — this guy is not a hard case,” he added. “I see him 20 times a day in clinic.”
“He has the classic features of neurodegeneration, word-finding difficulties, and that’s not, ‘Oh, I couldn’t find the word,’ that’s from degeneration of the word retrieval area,” Pitts explained, referring to Biden.
Whatever the system of government, it depends on people doing the right things for the right reasons. Too many people in government lack the courage to do what's right. So here we are.
Jennifer has an excellent point. One of the biggest differences between Biden and Trump is that Biden can tell right from wrong and usually strives to do the right thing. Trump in particular and Republicans in general either can't tell right from wrong, truth from lies, or if they can they don't give a rip.
Describing , not directing.
Post a Comment