Merits of the Parliamentary System of Government
i) The parliamentary system of government curbs autocracy and dictatorship in government. It is very difficult for the system to breed or produce dictators since the government is always conscious of the fact that if it does, it will incur the wrath of members of parliament which may lead to the passing of a vote of no confidence on it. The notion of party discipline which requires that both the government in power and members of parliament follow the laid down policies and programmes of the party as contained in its manifestoes usually ensure that neither the government nor the parliament crosses the line.
ii) Parliamentary system promotes dedication and efficiency in government. The ministers at party caucus must have thoroughly discussed proposals/bills before bringing them to the parliament for consideration. This ensures quick approval of policies and enacted of laws since members of the cabinet also sit in parliament where they see to their passage.
In addition, in order to avoid criticisms and the possibility of vote of no confidence on his government, the Prime Minister is always conscious of putting in the best. This is done through regular check on the activities of his ministers. The efficiency of ministers is further open to closer scrutiny during Question Time. This is the period when members of parliament from ministers what has been done or left undone in their ministries, and seek to know why. The legislators can also use this period to offer suggestions on how ministers can improve on their performance.
iii) There is a lot of merit in the concept of collective responsibility and ministerial responsibility which is built on the principle that the cabinet should be united in all its decisions. This makes the cabinet as a body and the ministers as individuals to be careful about their conduct in office because it may have far reaching implications on the stability and survival of the government. The principle of ministerial responsibility also discourages passing of bulk or shifting of blame by individual ministers. The parliamentary system is equally more democratic responsive to public opinion. This is because the cabinet is not responsible to the Prime Minister who appoints them, but to the parliament.
iv) The presence of an officially recognized opposition party in a parliamentary system of government makes the ruling party or the governing coalition to be conscious of its responsibilities to the electorate. For this reason the government is always alert to alternative views that may be canvassed by the opposition so as to know where to improve its performance. The role of the opposition party therefore is not only to constructively criticize the government as an effective watchdog, but also to see itself as the government in waiting or as an alternative government, that is ready to take over the government should the situation arises.
v) The fusion of power which ensures that cabinet members are also parliamentarians promotes mutual understanding between the legislative and the executive branches of government. The fact that members of the executive also sit in the legislature as law- makers ensures that process of decision making is faster. It does not require further elaboration to know that consensus on major issues can be easily reached since the cabinet usually operates as a committee of the parliament.
vi) The parliamentary system is less expensive to run because ministers are chosen from elected members of parliament. This is not the case under the presidential system of government where ministers are chosen from outside the parliament. Indeed, in a presidential system a serving member of the legislature parliament must first resign and vacate his seat in the house before he can be qualified to be appointed as minister. Thus, the additional money that will be required to hire more hands outside the legislature is thereby saved in a parliamentary system of government.
vii) In spite of changes of government at regular intervals the non-partisan but largely ceremonial and symbolic role of the monarch or head of state in a parliamentary system contributes to continuity and sustenance of state institutions. For example, in Britain because the Queen has been in office since 1953, she has remained the anchor of stability of the British institutions and values, despite changes in governments in the country in the past 53 years now.
i) The best people may not be in government since the Prime Minister is restricted to appoint ministers into his cabinet from members of his party. This is not the case under the presidential system of government the executive president is popularly elected, and enjoys a high degree of flexibility and freedom in the choice of those who will serve him in the cabinet. It is even possible for non- card carrying party member to be appointed to serve in the cabinet and other key positions in government.
ii) Parliamentary system violates the principle of separation of powers and the expectations that liberty of the citizens and rule of law will be guaranteed. A major disadvantage of fusion of powers is that it may lead to needless bottleneck in the relationships among the organs of government and complexity in administration of government.
iii) There is also the danger of personality clash or conflict of interest between the head of state and head of government in a parliamentary system of government. It has been further argued that a division of power between the head of state and government is alien to African societies where political leaders are used to wielding enormous power. This type of conflict of interest manifested between Dr. Azikiwe, then President and Alhaji Tafawa Balewa, then Nigeria’ Prime Minister of Nigeria in the First Republic when the two of them disagreed over the conduct and outcome of the December 30, 1964 federal elections. One of the reasons that made Nigeria decided in favour of the presidential system of government in 1979 was the fear of a possible repeat of the constitutional crisis, which enveloped the country in the aftermath of this disagreement between the two leaders. In September 2010, the Somalia Prime Minister, Omar Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke resigned from office due to personal disagreement between him and president Sheik Sharif Ahmed. While defending his resignation, Sharmarke explained: “After seeing that the political turmoil between me and the president has caused security vulnerability, I have decided to resign to save the nation…” (The Guardian, 22nd September, 2010).
iv) Another disadvantage of the parliamentary system of government is that it can also throw up a person who is not countrywide popular or known as a Prime Minister. Unlike the presidential system, which requires the leader of government (president) to have a countrywide appeal before he can be elected, the requirements for the office of a Prime Minister are less stringent. Any elected member of House of Commons from a single member constituency who is believed to have the majority support of other members can become the leader of government in Britain. This was exploited in Nigeria during the First Republic when the leaders of the Northern People’s Congress did not bother to campaign in the other regions because they were confident that votes from the Northern region alone were sufficient to earn them the prestigious post of Prime Minister.
Critically assess the parliamentary system of government.
4.0 SUMMARY
In this Unit, we have discussed the parliamentary system of government and identified its basic features. We also noted that the Parliament is the hub of the parliamentary system while the cabinet is its caucus where the operators of the system regularly meet to shape public policies. We identified the merits and demerits of this system of government and cited the example of Britain, despite its unwritten constitutional structure, as one country in which the culture of Westminster parliamentary system is fully developed and thriving.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Parliamentary system of government is widely acclaimed as Britain’s invention meant for export to the rest of the world. Its practice in Britain has been so successful
that countries outside the Commonwealth of Nations are craving to adopt it. Indeed Canada, despite its proximity to the United States and its readiness to always collaborate with the latter in other areas continues to retain its parliamentary system while its leaders regard it as near sacrosanct. Although the parliamentary system is not without its drawbacks, but when compared with the presidential model, on balance, it is seen by some as a preferable system of government.
iv) The presence of an officially recognized opposition party in a parliamentary system of government makes the ruling party or the governing coalition to be conscious of its responsibilities to the electorate. For this reason the government is always alert to alternative views that may be canvassed by the opposition so as to know where to improve its performance. The role of the opposition party therefore is not only to constructively criticize the government as an effective watchdog, but also to see itself as the government in waiting or as an alternative government, that is ready to take over the government should the situation arises.
v) The fusion of power which ensures that cabinet members are also parliamentarians promotes mutual understanding between the legislative and the executive branches of government. The fact that members of the executive also sit in the legislature as law- makers ensures that process of decision making is faster. It does not require further elaboration to know that consensus on major issues can be easily reached since the cabinet usually operates as a committee of the parliament.
vi) The parliamentary system is less expensive to run because ministers are chosen from elected members of parliament. This is not the case under the presidential system of government where ministers are chosen from outside the parliament. Indeed, in a presidential system a serving member of the legislature parliament must first resign and vacate his seat in the house before he can be qualified to be appointed as minister. Thus, the additional money that will be required to hire more hands outside the legislature is thereby saved in a parliamentary system of government.
vii) In spite of changes of government at regular intervals the non-partisan but largely ceremonial and symbolic role of the monarch or head of state in a parliamentary system contributes to continuity and sustenance of state institutions. For example, in Britain because the Queen has been in office since 1953, she has remained the anchor of stability of the British institutions and values, despite changes in governments in the country in the past 53 years now.
3.4.2 Demerits of the Parliamentary System of Government
i) The best people may not be in government since the Prime Minister is restricted to appoint ministers into his cabinet from members of his party. This is not the case under the presidential system of government the executive president is popularly elected, and enjoys a high degree of flexibility and freedom in the choice of those who will serve him in the cabinet. It is even possible for non- card carrying party member to be appointed to serve in the cabinet and other key positions in government.
ii) Parliamentary system violates the principle of separation of powers and the expectations that liberty of the citizens and rule of law will be guaranteed. A major disadvantage of fusion of powers is that it may lead to needless bottleneck in the relationships among the organs of government and complexity in administration of government.
iii) There is also the danger of personality clash or conflict of interest between the head of state and head of government in a parliamentary system of government. It has been further argued that a division of power between the head of state and government is alien to African societies where political leaders are used to wielding enormous power. This type of conflict of interest manifested between Dr. Azikiwe, then President and Alhaji Tafawa Balewa, then Nigeria’ Prime Minister of Nigeria in the First Republic when the two of them disagreed over the conduct and outcome of the December 30, 1964 federal elections. One of the reasons that made Nigeria decided in favour of the presidential system of government in 1979 was the fear of a possible repeat of the constitutional crisis, which enveloped the country in the aftermath of this disagreement between the two leaders. In September 2010, the Somalia Prime Minister, Omar Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke resigned from office due to personal disagreement between him and president Sheik Sharif Ahmed. While defending his resignation, Sharmarke explained: “After seeing that the political turmoil between me and the president has caused security vulnerability, I have decided to resign to save the nation…” (The Guardian, 22nd September, 2010).
iv) Another disadvantage of the parliamentary system of government is that it can also throw up a person who is not countrywide popular or known as a Prime Minister. Unlike the presidential system, which requires the leader of government (president) to have a countrywide appeal before he can be elected, the requirements for the office of a Prime Minister are less stringent. Any elected member of House of Commons from a single member constituency who is believed to have the majority support of other members can become the leader of government in Britain. This was exploited in Nigeria during the First Republic when the leaders of the Northern People’s Congress did not bother to campaign in the other regions because they were confident that votes from the Northern region alone were sufficient to earn them the prestigious post of Prime Minister.
Self-Assessment Exercise 3.4
Critically assess the parliamentary system of government.
4.0 SUMMARY
In this Unit, we have discussed the parliamentary system of government and identified its basic features. We also noted that the Parliament is the hub of the parliamentary system while the cabinet is its caucus where the operators of the system regularly meet to shape public policies. We identified the merits and demerits of this system of government and cited the example of Britain, despite its unwritten constitutional structure, as one country in which the culture of Westminster parliamentary system is fully developed and thriving.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Parliamentary system of government is widely acclaimed as Britain’s invention meant for export to the rest of the world. Its practice in Britain has been so successful
that countries outside the Commonwealth of Nations are craving to adopt it. Indeed Canada, despite its proximity to the United States and its readiness to always collaborate with the latter in other areas continues to retain its parliamentary system while its leaders regard it as near sacrosanct. Although the parliamentary system is not without its drawbacks, but when compared with the presidential model, on balance, it is seen by some as a preferable system of government.
Social Plugin