Parliamentary versus Presidential Democracy
According to Reiter and Stam (2002), the driving force behind the new wave of democratization stem from the belief that liberal democracy brings with it at least three promises: freedom, prosperity, and peace (1). A major factor prompting the adoption of democratic governments in formerly Communist Central and Eastern European countries involved the dual impact of economics and technology. As communist bloc countries continued to suffer from economic stagnation and as the growth of electronic technologies prevented regimes from controlling public exposure to information, citizen demands for democracy grew. The two main forms of democracy are presidential democracy as practiced in the United States and parliamentary democracy as practiced in Great Britain. The most significant distinction between these two forms of democracy revolves around the structure of power of the executive and legislative branches of government. While the presidential form of democracy separates there powers, the parliamentary form combines them. This and other differences leads to often quite different behavior and results under each form of government. Despite the increasing spread of democracy around the globe, countries in Central and Eastern Europe has selected the parliamentary form of government. This analysis will explore the differences between these two forms of democracy, while illustrating various factors about the region that might account for this preference. A conclusion will discuss the potential shape of democracies in future.
The distinct social, political, cultural, and historical factors prevalent in the countries in Central and European countries account for their preference for parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracy is often useful for newly forming democracies because it is viewed by many as being more moderate and inclusive than presidential democracy. In countries in C...