Parliament vs Presidency

[Innula Zenovka]

I've started to read The Day After, by Brian Taylor-Cohen

The Day After: How to Wield Power in a Post-Trump World – A Progressive Political Playbook on Saving Democracy from the #1 New York Times Bestselling Author of Shameless: Amazon.co.uk: Cohen, Brian Tyler: 9780063495104: Books

Buy The Day After: How to Wield Power in a Post-Trump World – A Progressive Political Playbook on Saving Democracy from the #1 New York Times Bestselling Author of Shameless by Cohen, Brian Tyler (ISBN: 9780063495104) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible...

www.amazon.co.uk

and I've come across this passage, which struck me because it seems so spectacularly wrong-headed.

With a parliament, the executive branch runs the legislature. The head of government—a prime minister, normally—is also the leader of the lawmakers. He or she has a seat in Parliament, merging the two branches of government. This is the system in Great Britain and Canada, Japan, and Germany. There are also heads of state—kings, queens, presidents—but they are ceremonial figures.

The system is essentially an elected monarchy. The British prime minister acts in the name of “the Crown” with the unrestricted powers of the monarch, as long as he or she controls the majority of the Parliament. Its members pass the budgets they want, when they want them. If they cannot pass those budgets, the government falls. There are committees and hearings, but they are toothless. There may be debates and televised question sessions, but they’re performative. There’s a vast difference between yelling insults at a prime minister and issuing subpoenas to investigate wrongdoing. The only real check and balance on executive power is a general election, when the voters get the chance to kick them out of power—or let them rule for another term.

People are probably tired of hearing about why I prefer parliamentary democracies to presidential republics, but the multiple mistakes in this short passage serve to demonstrate some of what I consider the benefits of the former system.

The whole point about having a ceremonial head of state -- the King of England or the President of Germany -- is that they have all the powers you don't want the head of government to have. The monarch is above the law -- King Charles can't be prosecuted in his own courts -- but he rules with the consent of parliament, which means his ministers are bound by the laws passed by parliament when acting on his behalf, and can't advise him to act in ways contrary to the law.

Boris Johnson's experience when, in 2019, he attempted to advise the Queen to prorogue (suspend) parliament for 5 weeks, from early September to October 14, ostensibly to provide time for the government to prepare the Queen's speech, outlining its legislative programme for the new session, but in fact, or so the government's critics claimed, to shut down parliamentary debate for five of the eight weeks before the forthcoming Brexit exit date.

Proceedings were brought in both the English and Scottish courts seeking a judicial review of of Johnson's advice to the Queen. The English divisional court declined to intervene, on the grounds it was a political decision, for which there were no legal standards, so the courts should not intervene. The Scottish courts, however, took the view that the PM could advise the Queen to use her powers only for a proper constitutional purpose (to give the government time to prepare her speech, which normally takes about a week), and not to prevent parliament from performing its normal constitutional functions.

Because of the disagreement between the two courts, the case went quickly to the Supreme Court, who found that the long prorogation had an exceptionally exceptionally damaging constitutional effect for which no reasonable justification had been provided, and was therefore unreasonable and thus unlawful.

Significantly, no reasonable justification had been provided because no one, from Boris Johnson downwards, could be found who was prepared to put their name to a witness statement verified by a statement of truth about the reasons for the long prorogation, which would have put them at risk of prosecution for contempt of court if it was later found to contain deliberate falsehoods.

This, it seems to me, is in complete contrast with the current position in the US, where the Supreme Court has held that the President enjoys immunity from prosecution for acts carried out in his official capacity. Johnson was certainly acting in his official capacity when he advised the Queen to prorogue parliament, and he would also clearly have been acting in his official capacity had he put his name to a witness statement giving an account of his reasons for so doing. This did not protect his advice from judicial review, and neither would it have protected him had he knowingly made a false witness statement about it.

Similarly, staying with Boris Johnson, the whole reason he had to resign was that he had lost the confidence of his own government following the Commons Privileges Committee's report into its investigation of various lies he'd told parliament in replies to parliamentary questions about the legality of activities in Downing Street under Covid regulations.

It's maybe worth remembering that the last British prime minister who came to power after winning a general election and then left office after losing one was Edward Heath, more than 50 years ago, who came to power though his party's victory in the 1970 general election and left office following his party's defeat in the February 1974 elections.

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

This passage is not new, and is aimed primarily at the Westminster system of democracy. It cannot be applied to easily at Germany due to the different type of voting system.

Lord Hailsham called this in 1976 the elective dictatorship: it means if one party has the majority in parliament it can do most of the times whatever it wants. Which is why he proposed a written constitution for the UK with a system of checks and balances in place.

And many forms of political tools like "Prime Minister's questions" deteriorate into theater instead of being meaningful due to that.

Anyway there are many aspects Hailsham should have thought more about it, like the judiciary system.

 

[Beebo Brink]

People are probably tired of hearing about why I prefer parliamentary democracies to presidential republics....

I'm more envious than tired, but either way it's not as if we have any choice in the matter. We're a presidential republic until such time as the United States dissolves into new groups of nation states, providing an opportunity for people to choose a new form of government. And of course, there's no guarantee that those new choices will be any better.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I'm more envious than tired, but either way it's not as if we have any choice in the matter. We're a presidential republic until such time as the United States dissolves into new groups of nation states, providing an opportunity for people to choose a new form of government. And of course, there's no guarantee that those new choices will be any better.

The one thing that really worries me about our system, and I hope it's something Andy Burnham fixes while there's still time, because I shudder to think what Nigel Farage could do with them if he ever becomes PM, is the use of statutory instruments. https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/secondary-legislation

Essentially, a great deal of primary legislation gives the appropriate minister the power to amend the legislation later by introducing a statutory instrument (basically a decree) which still has to be approved by Parliament but after far less scrutiny than an amendment to the primary legislation would receive.

Much of the time they're non-contentious, but they're certainly wide open to abuse.

 

[Beebo Brink]

Much of the time they're non-contentious, but they're certainly wide open to abuse.

As we're (bitterly) learning in the U.S., ultimately government only works when there is a good faith effort among all parties to at least want to govern well, for the good of the people of that country, and to follow the rule of law. There is simply no way to legislate away corruption and abuse if a significant portion of the reigning administration has abandoned their integrity.

All three branches of our federal government -- which were intended to serve as checks and balances against power -- are all colluding to commit egregious, open abuse of power. They may be competing for different agendas, but they are more invested in their personal visions for the country -- whether a theocracy or oligarchy -- than the democratic system rooted in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

As we're (bitterly) learning in the U.S., ultimately government only works when there is a good faith effort among all parties to at least want to govern well, for the good of the people of that country, and to follow the rule of law. There is simply no way to legislate away corruption and abuse if a significant portion of the reigning administration has abandoned their integrity.

All three branches of our federal government -- which were intended to serve as checks and balances against power -- are all colluding to commit egregious, open abuse of power. They may be competing for different agendas, but they are more invested in their personal visions for the country -- whether a theocracy or oligarchy -- than the democratic system rooted in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

In the UK it's known as the "good chaps" theory of government, a set of conventions to which senior politicians and civil servants used to adhere, but no longer.

As always on British constitutional matters, David Allen Green makes some very good observations:

“The best time to fix a roof is…”

28th July 2026 We have three years to protect our constitutional arrangements before a possible radical illiberal majority at the next General Election * There is enough time left, just about, to f…

theemptycity.com

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

People are probably tired of hearing about why I prefer parliamentary democracies to presidential republics

Why are you using these specific words (democracy and republic) in a contrasting manner?

The UK is not a republic, but most democracies and many parliamentary democracies are also republics, and most republics are democracies. The words describe different aspects of government. The common misconception in the US right notwithstanding, the US is both a republic and a democracy.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Why are you using these specific words (democracy and republic) in a contrasting manner?

The UK is not a republic, but most democracies and many parliamentary democracies are also republics, and most republics are democracies. The words describe different aspects of government. The common misconception in the US right notwithstanding, the US is both a republic and a democracy.

I use it because, as you suggest, a monarchy (e. g. The UK, Sweden, Belgium, Spain, Japan) is not a republic (e. g. Germany, Ireland, Portugal, the US, Russia, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea).

Republics can have all sorts of different forms of government, and those that are parliamentary democracies have a great deal more in common with constitutional monarchies that are also parliamentary democracies than they do with many other republics.

The key distinction, to my mind, between, on the one hand, a parliamentary democracy (whether it's in a republic or a constitutional monarchy) and a presidential republic is that in a parliamentary democracy the head of government and the head of state are two separate people and neither enjoys the authority of a personal mandate as chief executive.

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

But most of those parliamentary democracies are also republics, and traditional historical monarchies had that kind of unified authority... so you're muddying the waters. A better term would be something like "unitary" perhaps.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

But most of those parliamentary democracies are also republics, and traditional historical monarchies had that kind of unified authority... so you're muddying the waters. A better term would be something like "unitary" perhaps.

I'm arguing that the important distinction is between parliamentary democracy, with a head of government and chief executive who depends on the consent of the legislature and a separate, ceremonial, head of state, vs a presidential system. The important distinction, as far as I'm concerned, is between a parliamentary democracy and something else, not whether the country is a monarchy or a republic.

I asked ChatGPT to run the figures for me, using reputable websites (in this case, the Inter Parliamentary Union to decide whether a country is a parliamentary democracy rather than something else, and Freedom House to determine whether a country is classed as Free, Partially Free, or Not Free). I've not checked the figures but this is what it says

Form of state	Parliamentary democracies
Constitutional monarchies	26
Republics	31
Total	57

Comparison with parliamentary systems

Political system	Free	Partly Free	Not Free	Total
Parliamentary	57	16	4	77
Not parliamentary	30	31	55	116
All 193 IPU countries	87	47	59	193

So the contrast is considerable:

• About 74% of parliamentary countries are Free.
• Only about 26% of non-parliamentary countries are Free.
• Only 5% of parliamentary countries are Not Free, compared with 47% of non-parliamentary countries.

This does not prove that parliamentary government itself produces democracy. Many authoritarian presidential systems, absolute monarchies, communist states and military transitional regimes fall into the non-parliamentary category, while parliamentary institutions are historically concentrated in Europe and the Commonwealth.

Check out this chat

Here's a chat someone thought you'd want to see.

chatgpt.com

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

I'm arguing that the important distinction is between parliamentary democracy, with a head of government and chief executive who depends on the consent of the legislature and a separate, ceremonial, head of state, vs a presidential system. The important distinction, as far as I'm concerned, is between a parliamentary democracy and something else, not whether the country is a monarchy or a republic.

I get that and I am not disagreeing with that. At all.

I am arguing that the terminology is confusing, because the word "republic" basically means "not a monarchy". It has nothing to do with whether the system is democratic or not, or whether the head of state is the same person as the head of government.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I get that and I am not disagreeing with that. At all.

I am arguing that the terminology is confusing, because the word "republic" basically means "not a monarchy". It has nothing to do with whether the system is democratic or not, or whether the head of state is the same person as the head of government.

Yes, I understand. But I distinguished between parliamentary democracies and presidential republics, because I think parliamentary democracies that are also republics (e. g. Germany or Ireland) have a great deal more in common with a parliamentary democracy in a constitutional monarchy like the UK or the Netherlands than they do with either presidential republics like the US or Russia, different though the two republics are, or with absolute monarchies like Saudi, some of the Gulf states or Eswatini.

I'm saying that whether somewhere is a republic or a monarchy is of far less significant than whether they're a parliamentary democracy or something else.

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

That's all very sensible, but calling them "parliamentary democracies" and "presidential republics" is purely wrong and bad terminology. Distinguishing between "republic" and "democracies" on the same spectrum is something some fash republican thug would say over here.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

That's all very sensible, but calling them "parliamentary democracies" and "presidential republics" is purely wrong and bad terminology. Distinguishing between "republic" and "democracies" on the same spectrum is something some fash republican thug would say over here.

Clearly, though, not all republics are democracies (e.g. Iran, North Korea, the PRC), and not all democracies are republics.

What terms would you use that distinguished between, on the one hand, countries with ceremonial heads of state, however chosen, and with the head of government whichever member of the elected legislature who can command a parliamentary majority (e.g. the UK and Germany) and, on the other, those like the US and France in which the elected head of state is also the head of government, enjoying an electoral mandate in their own right, as distinct from the mandate enjoyed by members of the legislature?

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

Clearly, though, not all republics are democracies (e.g. Iran, North Korea, the PRC), and not all democracies are republics.

That's because they are orthogonal concepts that don't make any sense in a parallel construction.

What terms would you use that distinguished between, on the one hand, countries with ceremonial heads of state, however chosen, and with the head of government whichever member of the elected legislature who can command a parliamentary majority (e.g. the UK and Germany) and, on the other, those like the US and France in which the elected head of state is also the head of government, enjoying an electoral mandate in their own right, as distinct from the mandate enjoyed by members of the legislature?

I certainly wouldn't call it a "presidential republic" because that's not what those words mean.

Single or unified or unitary executive? Presidential and parliamentary systems would be better, though some countries have both a parliament and a presidential office, and some have other names for the office, the distinguishing feature of the system is that the source of authority in each case rests in a single person (the president) or a group (the parliament) respectively.

 

[detrius]

That's all very sensible, but calling them "parliamentary democracies" and "presidential republics" is purely wrong and bad terminology.

It's not really wrong, just redundant.

A functioning parliamentary system is aways a democracy and a presidential system is automatically a republic.

So saying "parliamentary democracy" or "presidential republic" is like saying "car vehicle" or "bungalow building".

Distinguishing between "republic" and "democracies" on the same spectrum is something some fash republican thug would say over here.

Those bad faith actors must really dominate the political discourse in your country to trigger such a vehement response.

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

I would say I run into some asshole claiming "America is a republic not a democracy" at least every other month even without searching out MAGA-attractive forums.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

Those bad faith actors must really dominate the political discourse in your country to trigger such a vehement response.

Yes. Yes they fucking do.

As I keep posting on other sites. "My car isn't a Honda, it's gray."

Unfortunately we in the US are living in the middle of a bunch of fuckwits that think it clever to post "America is a Republic not a Democracy." They don't understand either term except as labels their team and the other team. It's a MAGA "own the libs" mantra. So it does tend to set us on edge.

I do understand Innula's distinction, the import part being to look at the phrases and not get hung up on the individual words.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

To the larger point I absolutely agree that our form of government is stuck in time and is absolutely not fit to run a modern country. Unfortunately the will is not there to change it given how much it takes to amend the Constitution, or more properly replace it, given the magnitude of changes it would take. But I have a few thoughts on other complications that are unique to our form of government.

The main is the way the US "balances" the power of States with the Federal government. At the time the Constitution was adopted there was already a division between large and small states. It has become more pronounced as the US expanded. Wyoming has a bit over half a million people. California is just shy of 40 million. They both get two Senators. That further distorts the method of indirect election used to determine the President. In the Electoral College each state gets 2 votes plus the number of Representatives. The smallest states get three each. The number of voters per Elector gives small states more weight in the selection. The number of Representatives was frozen in 1929. As the population overall has grown the smaller states have only become more influential relative to their populations.

These smaller states are also less diverse, which is another important factor. A lot of current political division in the US is related to the shrinking share of Caucasian and rural populations. There is a fear of others especially by people who live much of their lives in homogeneous towns who were fine with democracy when they were in the demographic majority. Project 2025 is the blueprint for cementing White control as demographics change. Trump is the fulcrum point that the lever of simmering racist paternslism turns one. He is useful to a lot of people as a mobilizing figure. Just thank gods his incompetence and need for attention and is working against them.

As also noted, the Constitution works when people in power are committed to upholding norms. Nixon lost power when Republicans were presented with compelling evidence of criminal acts. But our government has been shifting power, with every President asserting more authority. We have reached a breaking point where in their desire for control, the Republicans have surrendered and left the Presidential power unchecked. That helped shift Supreme Court appointments and completely politicized the Court. They are desperate to keep Congress sidelined, hence the attempts effectively to federalize elections and limit participation.

Alongside this has been an attack on Civil Service. In the early Twentieth Century all levels of government worked to eliminate the spoils system and create a workforce that was hired for technical expertise instead of political loyalty. After Watergate the intelligence agencies and Department of Justice were further insulated from political control. The indiscriminate firings under Trump along with removing protection for Federal workers is gutting that body of skilled workers and demoralizing those who remain. I am finding it harder to teach in a red state as political decision are replacing skill and knowledge. Federal agencies are doing worse.

I have hope that the Republicans will not completely destroy democracy, but I also know they have fucked us in a way that will not be unfucked in my lifetime.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

It's not really wrong, just redundant.

A functioning parliamentary system is aways a democracy and a presidential system is automatically a republic.

So saying "parliamentary democracy" or "presidential republic" is like saying "car vehicle" or "bungalow building".


Those bad faith actors must really dominate the political discourse in your country to trigger such a vehement response.

At least according to Chat GPT, there are four countries the Inter-parliamentary Union lists as having a parliamentary system and Freedom House lists as Unfree: Cambodia, Ethiopia, Iraq and Thailand.

Check out this chat

Here's a chat someone thought you'd want to see.

chatgpt.com