Interesting thought. I’d have to do more research but I’m usually skeptical of cross-cultural comparisons like this. Seems like a lot of times they confuse correlation with causation. First thought in this case would be European countries typically opted for a parliamentarian system as they phased out strong monarchs whereas newly independent former colonies in the post war period typically opted for a presidential system following the hegemonic US’ example. The difference in outcomes then wouldn’t be due to the systems they chose but instead underlying economic and cultural factors. The other point is despite our presidential system, the US still has the oldest constitution in the world, so maybe we really are just exceptional :) Would be interested to look into this more because I do hear this argument about the benefits of parliamentarianism a lot. Seems to lend itself to more parties but also potentially more gridlock.
Again though I think the causation is tough to tease out. Regardless, a little gridlock here and there is a good thing. If there's no clear electoral mandate for sweeping changes, then in my opinion sweeping changes shouldn't be made just because a parliamentary coalition is able to cobble together a slim majority. The checks and balances of the US system should introduce more difficulty in getting things done, which lends itself to a conservative and incremental approach to legislation. Given the complexities of modern society, this approach is typically best. Biden's first term has been a notable exception in terms of slim majorities coupled with massive legislation. Will be very interesting to see how those pieces of legislation play out.
Great title! I do often wonder if we were, from the start, doomed by the framers.
Most countries that employ Presidential government systems, that split democratic legitimacy across two branches, have issues “keeping it.”
In this regard, parliamentarianism appears more stable: https://www.lianeon.org/p/imagining-our-martian-government
Interesting thought. I’d have to do more research but I’m usually skeptical of cross-cultural comparisons like this. Seems like a lot of times they confuse correlation with causation. First thought in this case would be European countries typically opted for a parliamentarian system as they phased out strong monarchs whereas newly independent former colonies in the post war period typically opted for a presidential system following the hegemonic US’ example. The difference in outcomes then wouldn’t be due to the systems they chose but instead underlying economic and cultural factors. The other point is despite our presidential system, the US still has the oldest constitution in the world, so maybe we really are just exceptional :) Would be interested to look into this more because I do hear this argument about the benefits of parliamentarianism a lot. Seems to lend itself to more parties but also potentially more gridlock.
Generally, it seems parliamentary systems have less gridlock from what I have read.
Again though I think the causation is tough to tease out. Regardless, a little gridlock here and there is a good thing. If there's no clear electoral mandate for sweeping changes, then in my opinion sweeping changes shouldn't be made just because a parliamentary coalition is able to cobble together a slim majority. The checks and balances of the US system should introduce more difficulty in getting things done, which lends itself to a conservative and incremental approach to legislation. Given the complexities of modern society, this approach is typically best. Biden's first term has been a notable exception in terms of slim majorities coupled with massive legislation. Will be very interesting to see how those pieces of legislation play out.
Yes, there are some merits to gridlock on occasion. I do believe, on net, parliamentarianism is advantageous.
Window dressing, so long as the blue and red cults stay in power.