Daily Times

The choice between a parliamentary and a presidential system of governance is a critical decision for any nation, especially those classified as developing or underdeveloped. Both systems have distinct features and implications for political stability, representation, and policy-making. In this article, I am going explore the characteristics of parliamentary and presidential systems and analyze which might be more suitable for a developing or an underdeveloped country.

In a parliamentary system, the executive branch is typically led by a Prime Minister who emerges from the majority party or coalition in the parliament. The head of state and head of government roles are often separate, with a ceremonial president. Parliamentary systems are known for their adaptability and flexibility. The majority party or coalition can change the head of government without a full election, offering flexibility. However, this can sometimes lead to political instability. The parliamentary system allows for proportional representation, providing a platform for diverse voices. Coalition governments are common, fostering collaboration among different political factions.

In a presidential system, the President serves as both the head of state and head of government. The president is elected independently of the legislature and holds significant executive and administrative powers. Presidential systems often provide more stability as the president’s term is fixed. However, this stability can sometimes lead to rigidity and accountability may be more challenging due to the separation of powers. Citizens directly elect the president, which can be seen as a more direct form of representation. However, it may not always reflect the diversity of political opinions within the country.

Which System is Better for Underdeveloped Countries? The suitability of a parliamentary or presidential system for underdeveloped countries depends on various factors. The political culture and traditions of a country play a vital role. If a nation has a history of successful coalition politics and consensus-building, a parliamentary system may be more appropriate.

Developing countries may prioritize stability to foster economic growth and social development. In such cases, a presidential system could provide a fixed leadership structure that contributes to stability and strength. Parliamentary systems often offer better representation due to proportional representation and coalition politics, which may be beneficial in diverse and multi-cultural underdeveloped nations.

The efficiency of decision-making processes is crucial. Some argue that a presidential system can provide clearer lines of authority, reducing bureaucracy and potentially expediting policy implementation. In conclusion, there is no one-size-fits-all answer to whether a parliamentary or presidential system is better for underdeveloped countries. The decision should be tailored to the specific context, considering historical, cultural, and governance efficiency factors. Ultimately, successful governance in developing nations requires a commitment to democracy, accountability and institutions that can adapt to the unique challenges each country faces.

Writer is a Educationist ,specialist in women empowerment, digital transformation, and visionary leadership. She specializes in Philosophy , Virology and Immunology.
@AishaFarOOqi