entral and Eastern Europe, with many different factions, religions and interest groups with conflicting opinions, such a system seems more advantageous. One must recognize the fact that the debate between presidential and parliamentary democracy is not about which one is best but which one best suit the needs and makeup of the citizens adopting it. Such social, political, cultural, and historical issues impact the way parliamentary or presidential democracies act. Despite the merits and limitations of both forms of government, it appears that since WWII parliamentary democracies have fared better than presidential democracies in keeping new nations united. According to Cheibub and Limongi (2002), ôParliamentary democracies seem to outperform presidential democracies in many key aspects, notably in their capacity to survive under a wide set of conditions. Between 1946 and 199, one in every twenty-three presidential regimes died (became a dictatorship), whereas only one in every fifty-eight parliamentary regimes diedö (3).
There are some core differences that distinguish the presidential from the parliamentary form of government. Other than the differences with respect to the relationship between the executive and legislative branches of government, there are a variety of others. The role played by elections and parties differs in bother systems. In a presidential democracy both the president and members of congress are elected in separate elections. In the parliamentary regime, the government and parliament members are elected in one election. In a parliamentary democracy, political parties are significantly empowered and their opposition to parties in control acts as a main form of check and balance on power. In a presidential system, political parties play a less significant role.
Another extremely important distinction between the two systems of democracy pertains to the power of the legislative branch. In a parl...