Government Structure

Government Structure [and Electoral Systems ]
Dr Benjamin Reilly, Australian National University, Canberra, AUSTRALIA

This short paper sets out options for structuring a system of government and choosing an electoral system in Afghanistan. It focuses on the comparative experience of other transitional democracies in choosing amongst and between the various options available in these areas. In particular, it examines the choices made by other countries which have recently emerged from a period of protracted conflict.

1. Government Structure: Presidential, Parliamentary, or Semi-Presidential?

There are essentially three options for constituting a representative system of government: one based on a parliamentary system, one based on a presidential system, and one based on some mixture of the two (usually called semi-presidentialism).

Parliamentary systems are characterized by the legislature being the principal arena for both lawmaking and (via majority decisions) for executive power. Presidential systems are characterized by the separation of the executive and legislative branches, with executive authority residing outside the legislature, with the president and his or her cabinet. The simplest definition of the differences between the two approaches can thus be summed up by the degree of relative independence of the executive. Presidential systems are characterized by executive independence, whereas parliamentary systems are characterized the mutual dependence and intertwining of both legislative and executive capacities.

In post-conflict societies, the key distinction between parliamentarism and presidentialism focuses on the range of parties and opinions that can be represented in the executive under a parliamentary system, in contrast to the unavoidably singular nature of authority represented by the office of the president. However, as with many institutional choices, the debate over the merits of parliamentary versus presidential government is not so much a question of which is best, but rather of the most appropriate choice for a given society, considering its particular social structure, political culture and history.

Parliamentary systems

In general, the majority of the world's "established" democracies use parliamentary systems.

The advantages of parliamentary systems include:

Ability to facilitate the inclusion of all groups within the legislature and the executive. Because cabinets in parliamentary systems are usually drawn from members of the elected legislature, parliamentary government enables the inclusion of all political elements represented in the legislature (including minorities) in the executive. Cabinets comprising a coalition of several
different parties are a typical feature of many well-established parliamentary democracies. In societies deeply divided by ethnic or other cleavages, this principle of inclusion can be vital.
Flexibility and capacity to adapt to changing circumstances. Because governments in most parliamentary systems can change on the floor of the legislature without recourse to a general election, advocates of parliamentarism point to its flexibility and capacity to adapt to changing circumstances as a strong benefit. A discredited government can be dismissed from office by the parliament itself, in contrast to the fixed terms common to presidential systems.
"Checks and balances". By making the executive dependent, at least in theory, upon the confidence of the legislature, parliamentary systems are said to foster greater accountability on the part of the government of the day towards the people's representatives. Proponents argue that this means that there is not only greater public control over the policy-making process, but also greater transparency in the way decisions are made.

The major disadvantages of parliamentary systems include:

Tendency towards ponderous or immobile decision-making. The inclusiveness that typifies coalition governments can easily turn into executive deadlocks caused by the inability of the various parties to agree upon key issues. This was typified by the "immobilism" that affected Fourth Republic France and that was partly responsible for General de Gaulle's assumption of presidential power. Decision-making deadlock was in part responsible for the breakdown of power sharing under Cyprus's 1960 constitution.

Lack of accountability and discipline. Critics also argue that parliamentary systems are inherently less accountable than presidential ones, as responsibility for decisions is taken by the collective cabinet rather than a single figure. This is especially problematic when diverse coalitions form the executive, as it can be difficult for electors to establish who is responsible for a particular decision and make a retrospective judgement as to the performance of the government.

Propensity towards weak or fragmented government. Some parliamentary systems are typified by shifting coalitions of many different political parties, rather than by a strong and disciplined party system. Under such circumstances, executive government is often weak and unstable, leading to a lack of continuity and direction in public policy.
Presidential systems

Presidentialism has been a popular choice amongst many new democracies in the last decade, especially in Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America. While the influence of the United States, the world's best known presidential system, is probably partly responsible for this trend, recent experience has also highlighted a number of advantages of presidentialism:

A directly elected president is identifiable and accountable to voters to a high degree. The office of the president can be held directly accountable for decisions taken because, in contrast to parliamentary systems, the chief executive is directly chosen by popular vote. It is thus easier for the electorate to reward or retrospectively punish a president (by voting him or her out of office) than is the case with parliamentary systems.

Ability of a president to act as a unifying national figure, standing above the fray of sectarian disputes. A president enjoying broad public support can represent the nation to itself, becoming a unifying symbol between rival political groupings. To play this role, however, it is important that the rules used to elect the president are tailored so as to achieve this type of broad support (see the following section on "Electoral Systems" for details).
Higher degree of choice. The fact that presidential systems typically give voters a dual choice - one vote for the president and one vote for the legislature - means that voters can be presented with a broader range of choice under presidential systems than parliamentary ones.
Stability of the office and continuity in terms of public policy. Unlike parliamentary governments, a president and his or her administration normally remains relatively constant throughout their term, which can give greater stability in office and predictability in policy-making than some alternatives. This leads, in theory at least, to more efficient and decisive governance, making it attractive for those cases where governments change frequently because of weak parties or shifting parliamentary coalitions, or where hard political decisions, such as contentious economic reforms, need to be taken.

By contrast, the major disadvantage of presidentialism in post-conflict situations is the propensity of the office to be captured by one faction, party or social group. This can create particular difficulties in multi-ethnic societies, where the president can easily be perceived as the representative of one group only, with limited interest in the needs or votes of others. This is particularly so in cases like Afghanistan, where a number of relatively coherent groups are present.

Other disadvantages include:

No real checks on the executive. This becomes even more true when there is a concordance between the president's party and the majority party in parliament. In this case (typified, for many years, by Mexico) the parliament has almost no real checks on the executive and can become more of a glorified debating chamber than a legitimate house of review. This problem can be exacerbated by the fact that a president, unlike a parliamentary prime minister, can become virtually inviolable during his or her term of office, with no mechanism for dismissing unpopular incumbents.

Lack of flexibility. While impeachment of the president by the legislature is a device built into many presidential systems, it remains the case that the presidency is a much less flexible office than the major alternatives. Salvador Allende's election as president of Chile in 1970, for example, gave him control of the executive with only 36 per cent of the vote, and in opposition to the centre and right-dominated legislature. Some analysts have argued that Chile's 1973 military coup can be traced back to the system that placed an unpopular president in a position of considerable long-term power.

Semi-presidential systems

A final executive type is sometimes called "semi-presidentialism". Under this model, a parliamentary system and a prime minister with some executive powers is combined with a president, who also has executive powers. The ministry is drawn from and subject to the confidence of the legislature. This is a relatively unusual model - found today in France, Portugal, Finland, Sri Lanka and one or two other countries - but nonetheless is sometimes advocated as a desirable executive formulation for fragile democracies.

Advantages:
Can combine advantages of presidentialism and parliamentarism. The appeal of the semi-presidential model is its ability to combine the benefits of a directly elected president with a prime minister who must command an absolute majority in the legislature. A move to semi-presidentialism has been recommended as a good "half way house" for some countries that want to combine the benefits of both presidential and parliamentary systems.

Mutual consensus requirement. Proponents of semi-presidentialism focus on the capacity of semi-presidentialism to increase the accountability and "identifiability" of the executive, while also building in a system of mutual checks and balances and the need for consensus between the two executive wings of government. This mutual consensus requirement can be particularly important for divided societies, as it requires a president to come to an agreement with the legislature on important issues, and thus to be a force for the "middle ground" rather than the extremes.


Disadvantages:
Propensity for deadlock between and within the executive arms of government. Because a government's powers are effectively divided between the prime minister and the president - for example, foreign affairs powers being the preserve of the president while the prime minister and the cabinet decide domestic policy - a structural tension exists within the government as a whole. This can lead to deadlock and immobilism, particularly if, as occurs relatively often, the prime minister and the president come from opposing political parties. The benefits of compromise and moderation can degenerate into a stand-off. This is especially the case when the division of responsibility between the two offices is not always clear (e.g., foreign policy in the French system), and where the timing and sequencing of elections between the houses differs.

Conclusion
Beyond all of these arguments, there is the empirical record to consider. Of the many states that became independent in the three decades following the end of World War Two, all countries which could claim to have maintained a continuously democratic record to the late 1980s were parliamentary systems. Of the 93 new democracies that gained their independence between 1945 and 1979, all of the 15 countries which remained democratic throughout the 1980s were parliamentary rather than presidential systems, including some of the developing world's most successful democracies like India, Botswana, and Papua New Guinea. Conversely, all the new presidential democracies from this period suffered some form of breakdown. Overall, parliamentary systems have three times the rate of survival of presidential systems.