Foundation for Constitutional Democracy
August 2, 1999
Position Paper VII.а УRefuting Arguments Against Presidential GovernmentФ
Various
arguments are made against presidential vis-a-vis parliamentary
government.аа Some political scientists
contend that, given the presidentТs fixed term of office, the political process
becomes broken into discontinuous, rigidly determined periods without the
possibility of continuous readjustments as political, social, and economic
events may require.а No evidence,
however, is offered to substantiate this academic contention.а One may equally argue that most governments
under parliamentary systems run their allotted tenure of four years and are
equally discontinuous.а
Alternatively, it could be
argued that presidentialism reduces the uncertainties and unpredictability
inherent in parliamentarism.а
Parliamentary systems usually involve a large number of parties whose
leaders and their rank-and-file legislators often undergo changing loyalties
and realignments and can therefore, at any time between elections, make basic
policy changes and even change the head of the executive, i.e., the prime
minister.а A country like Israel,
surrounded by hostile dictatorships, requires strong and predictable executive
power, hence presidential government.
ааааааааааа Presidentialism
also provides accountabilty and identifiability.а The voter knows who he or she is voting for and who will govern
should this candidate win. This may also be true in parliamentary regimes
consisting of only a few parties with highly visible leaders.а But it is certainly not true in a multiparty
system (like IsraelТs) in which no party can expect to gain an absolute
majority, in which case the voter does not even know which parties will form a
governing coalition.
ааааааааааа It may also be said
that unlike parliamentary systems, which often have a well-known shadow
government, a president-elect starts naming a cabinet only after the
election.а Again this argument does not
apply to Israel, where cabinets consisting of several parties are the
rule.а On the other hand, presidential
government, after three of four elections, will tend to produce a two-party
system on the national level, and this may in turn lead to the phenomenon of a
shadow government.
ааааааааааа Critics of
presidentialism also refer to the phenomenon of Уgrid-lock,Ф when the
legislature is dominated by a party other than that of the president.а Studies indicate, however, that, in the USA,
Уgrid-lockФ is very much a myth.а
Politicians of both major parties know that the publicТs business must
be done if they are to remain in office, so that compromise between president
and congress is the rule.а
ааааааааааа Some argue that the
concentration of power in a president has prompted various countries to limit
the presidency to two terms, which results in a second-term Уlame-duckФ
president.аа The solution is simple:а eliminate the two-term limitation, which is
but to give the people the choice of retaining or changing their
president.а Besides, a prime minister,
with a solid parliamentary majority, can yield more power than a president and
remain in office for more than two terms.аа
Israel needs a presidential system of government, which, by the way, is
more consistent with Jewish concepts.а
(See Sanhedrin 8a.)
ааааааааааа Finally, critics of
presidential government point to the poor record of such systems in South
America.а But the political culture of
South American countries is not very promising to parliamentary systemsЧas John
Quincy Adams predicted 175 years ago!