NationStates Jolt Archive

After having to study the French political thinker, Charles de Montesquieu, my history class got an interesting insight into his brainchild, Separation of Powers and Presidentialism.

So, is presidentialism (Like in the USA) better than presidentialism (Like in Britain)?

Or does the frenchie inbetween pwn everybody else?

Or are you cynical and hate them all 'cause they're all crap? ;)

So, is presidentialism (Like in the USA) better than parliamentarism (Like in Britain)?

:p

Parliamentarism is better. Greater opportunity for divergent views, and more opportunity for discussion, etc. Though i'll admit i'm not overly educated upon the US executive.

Though i'd prefer direct democracy, myself :)

down with sham democracy of parliaments and presidents!

fuck all ruling classes

down with sham democracy of parliaments and presidents!

fuck all ruling classes
Yeah, that’ll work. :rolleyes:

Having a president has worked just fine for the US, when we have a good one. I assume the same can be said for the parliamentary way of doing things in Britain. Though, I don't like the idea of voting for parties instead of people.

President sounds cooler than Prime Minister.

Yeah, that’ll work. :rolleyes:

better than this mess

Having a president has worked just fine for the US, when we have a good one.

aye, there's the rub

Though, I don't like the idea of voting for parties instead of people.
We vote for parties not people?

Is that why the electoral ballot has the names of the candidates on it?

We vote for parties not people?

Is that why the electoral ballot has the names of the candidates on it?
My mistake, must have been thinking of another country.
better than this mess
How utterly lacking in substance. Do you enjoy being a parrot?

fuck all ruling classes
The ruling class looks extremely sexy...as you wish :D

How utterly lacking in substance. Do you enjoy being a parrot?

as opposed to your treatise on the neccesity of ruling classes that that was in response to?

shit man, haven't i expounded at length on this enough yet? we've had entire threads devoted to it. excuse me for going for the quick hit on silly threads.

The ruling class looks extremely sexy...as you wish :D

heh, reminds me of a banner we had once:

"fuck the ruling class...but remember to use a condom"

as opposed to your treatise on the neccesity of ruling classes that that was in response to?

shit man, haven't i expounded at length on this enough yet? we've had entire threads devoted to it. excuse me for going for the quick hit on silly threads.
Yes, but everything you say is extremely lacking in substance and is far removed from realty. You simply repeat the same drivel that angry young people (and those that exploit them) have been saying for fifty years.

everything you say is extremely lacking in substance

???

in comparison to who?

After having to study the French political thinker, Charles de Montesquieu, my history class got an interesting insight into his brainchild, Separation of Powers and Presidentialism.

So, is presidentialism (Like in the USA) better than presidentialism (Like in Britain)?

Or does the frenchie inbetween pwn everybody else?

Or are you cynical and hate them all 'cause they're all crap? ;)
I agree with Montesquieu's interpretation that we need separation of powers, but I believe that only in direct democracy does it work. In a republic, it is impossible to have a "perfect balance," all of the time. And ultimately, one must prevail. To quote Jesus, "A slave cannot serve two masters." And a citizenry cannot serve two conflicting powers. So, ultimately, one must have a certain level of authority over the rest. And eventually, that authority will allow it to overtake the rest, ending in fascism.

This happens far more quickly in a presidency than in a parliament, because presidents are basically just a "soft king," that must give back his power for the good of the nation. But human nature has taught that people with power will not simply give it back, and being that the president can veto any bill which would limit his power, through time, the president can only become more powerful.

Therefore, parliamentary republics are inferior to direct democracy, but presidencies are inferior to parliamentary republics.

Britain's government is equally flawed as the American government, however. Because although the prime minister doesn't have the amount of power that the U.S. president does, the royal family certainly does. They just choose not to exercise it. That certainly won't be true, forever.

I believe that the Parliamentary system is matched by none. It is the best system on the planet. At least for now, or until someone comes up with a better system.

I believe that the Parliamentary system is matched by none. It is the best system on the planet. At least for now, or until someone comes up with a better system.
What a coincidence it is that most Americans believe their government is the best system there could ever be, that most Britons believe their government is the best system there could ever be, that most Frenchmen believe their government is the best system there could ever be, that most Arabs believe their government is the best system there could ever be...

What a shame it is that our minds have been shackled by the status quo.

I would say it depends purely on the execution. Neither one is inherently better than the other, it all depends upon how they are actually run.

What a coincidence it is that most Americans believe their government is the best system there could ever be, that most Britons believe their government is the best system there could ever be, that most Frenchmen believe their government is the best system there could ever be, that most Arabs believe their government is the best system there could ever be...

What a shame it is that our minds have been shackled by the status quo.

Well I'm Canadian, so I'm none of the above mentioned, however Canada is run by a Parliamentary system, but I try to look at it objectively and right now it is the best system at least in my opinion. Do I hope one day for a better system? You bet!

No gods, No masters, AGAINST ALL AUTHORITY! Anarchosyndicalism.

Well, if your going just based on the US constitution in my opinion it is better. I love how the founding fathers tried their hardest to devise a system where it was almost impossible to sucessfully take over (like if one party controls a parliament, they can change all the rules) And the fact a president is elected every 4 years, and house of representative and senate elections even more frequent it makes for quite a good system. :)

Britain's government is equally flawed as the American government, however. Because although the prime minister doesn't have the amount of power that the U.S. president does, the royal family certainly does. They just choose not to exercise it. That certainly won't be true, forever.

You don't really understand the British Constitution if you think that. The Monarch has little or no power anymore.

The Prime Minister exercises all the powers of the Monarchy such as the ability to declare war etc.

I agree with Montesquieu's interpretation that we need separation of powers, but I believe that only in direct democracy does it work. In a republic, it is impossible to have a "perfect balance," all of the time. And ultimately, one must prevail. To quote Jesus, "A slave cannot serve two masters." And a citizenry cannot serve two conflicting powers. So, ultimately, one must have a certain level of authority over the rest. And eventually, that authority will allow it to overtake the rest, ending in fascism.

This happens far more quickly in a presidency than in a parliament, because presidents are basically just a "soft king," that must give back his power for the good of the nation. But human nature has taught that people with power will not simply give it back, and being that the president can veto any bill which would limit his power, through time, the president can only become more powerful.

Therefore, parliamentary republics are inferior to direct democracy, but presidencies are inferior to parliamentary republics.

Britain's government is equally flawed as the American government, however. Because although the prime minister doesn't have the amount of power that the U.S. president does, the royal family certainly does. They just choose not to exercise it. That certainly won't be true, forever.
Oh, I don't know about that... ;)

First, I take exception to the idea that the citizenry serve the government. I think the whole point of democracy is that it is the other way around. The extent to which it isn't that way in practice may just as easily be the fault of people not keeping to the system, as it could be a fault in the system itself.

Second, isn't every system prone to corruption of one kind or another?

Presidentialism is vulnerable to attempts to concentrate power in the executive (as we see happening with the current US admin).

Parliamentarianism is vulnerable to party take-overs, as someone else pointed out. Even a multi-party system can be undone by corrupt alliances between parties that voters think are opposed to each other, or by bait-and-switch tactics in which one party pretends to ally with another in order to destroy or absorb it.

Direct democracy is vulnerable to straight-up bribery and to tyranny by the majority in which persecution of minorities becomes a danger.

I think the only way to keep a democratic system running smoothly is to give it regular inspections and tune-ups, as it were -- lots of elections, and lots of cynical policing of the government by the people, using the right tools, including checks and balances, a free press, and an independent judiciary. Unfortunately, this is a lot of work, and that's why all three systems are vulnerable to devolving into authoritarianism. It's easier to let daddy make all the decisions.

Democratic citizens are not slaves, but lazy citizens eventually will be.

Direct democracy is vulnerable to straight-up bribery and to tyranny by the majority in which persecution of minorities becomes a danger.

whereas representative democracy limits the total number of people you need to bribe down to a much more manageable number. and it lowers the threshold of support some policy needs in order to become law for everybody - it actually allows pluralities and majorities that would otherwise be rather indifferent about the whole tyranny thing if they had to do it themselves to elect a couple of go-getters to really get said tyranny up and running.

whereas representative democracy limits the total number of people you need to bribe down to a much more manageable number. and it lowers the threshold of support some policy needs in order to become law for everybody - it actually allows pluralities and majorities that would otherwise be rather indifferent about the whole tyranny thing if they had to do it themselves to elect a couple of go-getters to really get said tyranny up and running.
Yes, that's true, but of all the forms, direct democracy is the weakest from the angle of citizen-laziness and thus the hardest to maintain. I believe that's why we have representative democracy at all. If the voting unit (community) can be kept to a small enough size (I don't know the ideal size) then direct democracy should be sustainable because all or most of the citizens will feel they have a direct stake in all the issues. The larger the population the more likely it is that (a) there will be issues that affect some people and not others, and (b) there will be more and more issues to address. Soon, the democratic process will interefere with daily living -- keeping a job, raising the kids, cleaning the house, getting sleep, etc. Fewer people will participate; eventually they will assign others to attend on their behalf -- bingo! representative democracy. In the meantime, at the point where it's a pain in the ass to keep fully informed on every issue, the votes of citizens will be vulnerable to being bought by interested parties.

I like the model followed by the state of Vermont, where representative democracy functions at the state and county levels, but direct democracy takes over at the town level when it comes time to allocate tax funds received from the state and decide local ordinances (the very famous Vermont Town Meeting). I should point out, though, that Town Meetings don't really work in cities such Burlington, VT, which has population of about 50,000 or so. For large urban centers, you may still need representative democracy for city government, but break that down into districts for direct democracy to decide allocation of funds and district services.

Just a thought about combining the best of all the worlds. Democracy buffet-style. :D

Parliamentarism is OK, but it can lead to instability. It's better than presidentialism though.

I think that semi-presidentialism (like in Portugal or France) is a sane balance between the two, as the president is directly elected (as opposed to parliamentarism where the president is elected by the parliament and has a mere ridiculous ceremonial role) and has a limited range of powers (like dissolving the parliament and such). He/she is not the head of the government (opposed to presidentialism) as the government comes out of the elected parliament.

In semi-presidentialism the parliament has basically the same power as in parliamentarism, and it's good to have a president AND a parliament to supervise the government. And the president can always call for a fresh election if the situation really deserves it.

Just a thought about combining the best of all the worlds. Democracy buffet-style. :D

Rather likie what they do in switzerland. Cool, huh.

I like presidentialism as long as George W. Bush is the president! :)

OH MY GOD!!! ITS CARIBEL!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:
*sarcasm* :D
Better not spam and troll this time!

Liberty and Xeorcracy for all.