Parliamentary and Presidential Regimes Regime types defined by executive-legislative relations. Presidential = mutual independence of the executive and the legislature. Directly elected president is independent of congress. Parliamentary = mutual dependence between the executive and the legislature. Prime minister is responsible to parliament Semi-presidential= Prime minister is responsible to parliament, but there is also a directly elected president.

Under which system is democracy most likely to endure? Conflicting evidence, but balance in favour of parliamentarism: BUT 1.Not enough studies separate parliamentarism and conditions like culture, economic development, size and ethnic homogeneity. 2. Diversity of presidential regimes. Only some versions may be inappropriate. 3. Limited evidence on semi-presidentialism: most of these regimes are young. 4. Even more limited evidence on WHY parliamentarism is supposed to be better.

Arguments against Presidentialism 1.Conflicting legitimacies Deadlock Subversion of democracy (usually by military and/or president) 2. “Lame Duck” Presidents Unpopular chief executive may remain in power for years. Mutual dependence of parliamentarism should prevent both of these problems. BUT … 1. Minority governments – conflicting legitimacies? 2. Unpopular party can remain in power for years …

3. Presidentialism undermines parties Presidential elections facilitate populist outsiders Parties provide stability and experienced politicians Arguments for Presidentialism 1.Checks and balances Originally designed to prevent any individual or group obtaining too much power. 2. Moderation President needs wide constituency (Especially helpful in a divided society.)

Prior Regime (Cheibub) Presidential regimes have tended to be preceded by military regimes and this prior regime type undermines democracy. BUT Is it really plausible that two such different regime types are equally likely to sustain democracy?