Thank you!! this explanation was so much easier to understand. I have to write an essay and I was having trouble understanding how a parliamentary system works. Thank you again.
the presidential system seems to be very cumbersome in terms of passing laws because of too many gates that need to be passed through and get approval from...
The idea of a separation of branches of power into executive judicial and legislative has some advantages because it introduces focus specialization into governance and if the Bureaucracy backing it up was properly organized the issue of grid lock and inefficient administration would be solved. The biggest problem with the presidential system is that the bureaucratic and administrative institutions besides the governing branches do not have as many checks on its power because their isn’t an overarching system regulating. A radical change in the management of bureaucracy must be made to solve this but it becomes an issue because the three branches of government are dependent on the bureaucracy to function but the bureaucracy itself has zero accountability to the offices of government thus they have free reign to mire the government in its corruption and puppeteering with self profiteering autocratic rulings. If that can be fixed by trying to make the administration of the institutions backing a state more accountable to the public and the branches of government it would work better than a parliamentary system by far. The only thing I would add which I agree with is a separation of head of state and head of government. This is something which can still be maintained even in a presidential system whether by monarchy or even separate dual elected officials with the president and Vice President pretty much assuming these separate roles.
Local authorities /councils have the power to levy rates (land/property tax) which largely fund local projects and administration. Cabinet members are chosen from the elected members of parliament, not appointed by the president from unelected persons. Similarly public servants and ambassadors retain their posts rather than be replaced in "jobs for the boys" shake ups, which give continuity and a professionalism in upper administration and international relations.
Interesting explanation, but are countries that have 5 powers and not only 3, as majority of people think or represents when it comes to presidential system. Venezuela has 5 public powers.
I don't think the UK still follows the Law Lords system anymore. *Moreover*, many Parliamentary systems (such as India) don't follow this form of Judiciary. Please don't coat all systems in the same way as there are different Parliamentary systems and the UK is not the best example of a Parliamentary system in the first place. Moreover, the Judiciary in the US is connected to the Executive and Legislature since the Chief Justice is appointed by the President and approved by the Senate, which is something you forgot to mention. There are many faults with the video while explaining Parliamentary system, and the tone is so biased in favor of the Presidential system (I guess coz this guy is American). The American Judiciary is notorious for interpreting the Constitution and have passed laws on their own, which is the job of the Legislature (i.e., the Congress). It's better to avoid inclined/biased tones while teaching a subject/topic. (Read up on "Judicial Review" people) Please take whatever he says, with an asterisk (implying a "but") and read up on it yourself. Do explore other countries besides the US and the UK, to understand how different they all are. Some countries to explore: Germany France Japan Brazil India Pakistan Mexico Canada Australia
7:42 - B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T. If you're the Leader of the Party that gets a majority in Parliament, even though you are not elected, you still can be asked by Her Majesty (or in the case of Commonwealth Realms, the Governor General) to form a Government even though you have have no foot in the House of Commons. A good example of this is in Québec, 1985 general election. The Liberal Party won by landslide but its leader, Robert Bourassa, was not elected in his riding. the Lieutenant Governor (Provincial equivalent to the Gov. General) still asked him to form the Government even though he was not elected. Following the tradition one of his backbenchers left and Bourassa ran unopposed (the other parties offered no candidates against him) in a by-election. The fact that the PM has to be elected is something we call PARLIAMENTARY TRADITION, non-written rules that are purely political. The entire parliamentary system is based on these traditions. Some of them evolve, others does not. Others are overrun by laws that replace them. in Commonwealth Realms these tradition are partially codified in the Constitution of the country, even though most of them does not explain who and what is a Prime Minister nor how the Cabinet works. In a preamble paragraph it establishes that the Colony wished to become a Dominion with a functioning similar to the one of the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Whales and (Northern) Ireland, which is, as I said, not codified, non-written and purely political (the UK has no constitution. You can say that the UK's constitution is pretty much Her Majesty's will). To nail the coffin, the Government's party, like any other parties has Leader in the parliament, purely distinct from the PM or the entire executive branch (which is also by tradition chosen from elected MPs). He is usually considered as the PM's Pitbull.
Also, Prime Minister does not imply you have a seat in the Legislature. it means you are Her Majesty's (or the Gov. General's) appointed leader of the executive branch. If you remember your Montesquieu 101, even though they are by tradition in such parliamentary system intertwined, they are different entities. In other terms, you collect roles: in the legislative branch as simple MP of your local riding and in the executive branch as Prime Minister (or Minister of X).
is there a case in history a person has been asked by Her Magesty to become PM,? see, much of the monarch´s faculties expressed in legal procedures and constitution are just simbolic.
Ariel Winns well... all the time. The UK's constitution is non written and some «constitutional-ish» acts are simple acts of Parliament equal to any other acts. In the Commonwealth Realms like Canada, the Constitution came from an act of the Westminster Parliament, later repatriated to its local parliament (like Ottawa). These acts never talk of anything like: What is a Prime Minister, What is a Cabinet, what is Parliament... it simply abides its existence and in certain cases, defines its jurisdictions. It is simply because these institutions like Parliament were made by Kings to advise them and rule for them while they're busy hunting, sparring, war-mongering and fucking. A great example of this is in War-Mongering: Only Her Majety can declare war on another country (upon request of the PMO, yet...) The Government is still formed from by Will of the King/Queen. Even in a Constitutional Monarchy/Democracy like the UK, Canada or Australia, political powers comes from Her Majesty. Not the contrary.
