7/28/2019 Different Systems of Democracy

1/3

Different Systems of Democracy

Democracyis not a sharply defined form of government that would need to be implemented in just oneand no other way. Both in theoryand inpractice there are as many systems of democracy thandemocratic countries. Nevertheless there are some general features as well as some groups ofdemocratic systems that may be distinguished from each other.

Contrary to other authors, I will not try to presentpure and ideal theories but rather start from the otherside: how can the different systems of democracy be distinguished in everyday political life.

The Common Features of Democracy

Before we look at the differences it might be useful to recall the basic principles common to all forms ofdemocracy, however.

Separation of Powers: Legislative Power: parliament

normally in two chambers

Executive Power: government and administration Judicative Power: courts of justice

Constitution Laws debated and passed by the parliament Decrees by the government

based on laws and regulating the details how to the laws shall be applied in practice Elections Political Parties Referendums

Though there are massive differences on how frequent referendums are and on which level theyapply (constitution or single laws), the concept as such is known in any practical form ofdemocracy.

Three Basic Types of DemocracyAny form of democracytries in its own way to ascertain the will of the people and to bring public affairs

into line with it. Theoretically this can be achieved by directparticipation of all citizens (Direct Democracy)or by a body of elected representatives (Representative Democracy). Within the group of RepresentativeDemocracies the focus may be on a strong president (Presidental Democracy) or on a strong parliament(Parliamentary Democracy). As already mentioned, the question is not whether there exist some forms ofdirect participation or of representation but rather on how much importance they are given in a certainsystem.

7/28/2019 Different Systems of Democracy

2/3

DirectDemocracy

PresidentialDemocracy

ParliamentaryDemocracy

Example:Switzerland Examples: USA, France Examples: UK, Germany,Spain, Italy

Head of State

Any member of government inturn (for one year), no practicalimportance

The President is head of

state andleader of the government

Head of State

is a differnent function thanprime minister, it may be amonarch (queen/king) or anelected person

Government: members withequal rights, elected by theparliament,representing all major parties(not really unanimous, butextremely stable)

President elected by thepeople nominates theministers[members of government]

Government elected by theparliament based on amajority, may be dismissedby the parliament(especially when based ona coalition of severalparties)

Parliament elected for a fixedlegislative period, no dissolution;changing coalitions, sometimeseven extreme right and extremeleft together against the center(though for different reasons)

Parliament elected for a fixed legislativeperiodclear institutionalseparation ofparliament and government (butthe officials may cooperate asclosely as in the other systems, ifthey like to do so)

Parliament elected for alegislative period,dissolution and early newelections possible if a clearmajority cannot beestablished

Government members need notbe members of parliament

Government members need notbe members of parliament

Government members mustbe elected members ofparliament

Strong position of thepeople (frequent referendumson single laws)

Strong position of the president (veto) Strong position of thepolitical parties

Laws are created in four steps:1. Draft by the administration2. Consultation of federal states,political parties, entrepreneurs,unions and other interestedgroups3. Parliamentary debate and finalversion passed4. Possibility of a referendumIf a strong party or lobbythreatens to call for areferendum, the parliamentmight be inclined to a

compromise, the formalconsultation process gives thepublic a clear view of the criticalaspects and the pros and consalready at an early stage

Laws are debated and passed by theparliament;lobbyists do not have a formal right to beheared, but do exercise some influenceon members of parliament in reality;the president may block a law by veto;as the president is elected as apersonality (not only as a party leader) bythe people (not by the parliament), hemay or may not rely on a majority of theparliament (in practice there have beensome periods with a president forced tocooperate with a majority of oppositional

members of parliament)

Laws are proposed by thegovernment (being theleaders of the coalition ofparties)laws are debated andpassed by parliament;lobbyists do not have aformal right to be heared,but do exercise someinfluence on members ofparliament in reality;if there is a solid majority,compromises are sought

within the coalition (andmay sometimes representtactics rather thanvonviction), the oppositionmay be ignored until thenext elections but then lawsmay be revoked or changedby a new majority

http://www.democracy-building.info/switzerlands-political-system.htmlhttp://www.democracy-building.info/switzerlands-political-system.htmlhttp://www.democracy-building.info/switzerlands-political-system.htmlhttp://www.democracy-building.info/switzerlands-political-system.html

7/28/2019 Different Systems of Democracy

3/3

The process of making laws israther slow, which may be ahadicap with more technicallyoriented laws (regulatingquestions of broad public interestbut addressing a small number

of professionals). Lawsconcerning everybody'severyday's actions, however,may get more attention andacceptance by the public andtherefore be more effective dueto the intense public debate.

A strong president may act immediately -but there is a certain risk that he rushesto conclusions he may hardly be willing towithdraw from even if they prove to beunwise from a later point of view.

If there are many smallparties in a country, theclose dependance of thegovernment on aparliamentary majority mayundermine the stability of

the government.

History shows that from time totime the Swiss peopledoescorrect decisions ofparliament and goverment thatgive in too much to lobbypressure, so Direct

Democracyseems to offereffective checks and balances.But sometimes it just takes along time (decades, not years)until a new idea is finally broadlyaccepted.

The separation of powers - though itmight seem very clear in theory - doesnot automatically provide moreeffective checks and balances betweenparliament and government than inaParliamentary Democracy.

If there are only tworelevant parties and onehas a comfortable majority,the parliamentary systemoffers few effective checksand balances.

Conclusion

Though there are remarkable formal and institutional differencies between thesystems ofDirect,PresidentialandParliamentary Democracy, there are moreor less successful examples for any of these systems.

Therefore the practical results - measurable by different factors such asnational wealth (both mean income and distribution of wealth), accessabilityand standards of education, life expectancy, infant mortality, corruption andso on - tend to depend less on the choice of one system or another but ratheron what might be called an "established culture of democracy", consisting ofbothknow-how(experience how the system once chosen works in practice)andtrustthat it works and it pays - for the society as a whole as well as for theindividuals.