Parliamentary system
-
Parliamentary systems: Head of government is elected or nominated by and accountable to the legislature.Constitutional monarchy with a ceremonial monarchSemi-constitutional monarchy: Monarch holds significant executive or legislative power but is still restricted by the constitution.Parliamentary republic with a ceremonial president
Presidential system: Head of government (president) is popularly elected and independent of the legislature.Presidential republicTheocratic presidential republic: Supreme leader is highest authority; popularly elected president still exists.
Hybrid systems:Semi-presidential republic: Executive president is independent of the legislature; head of government is appointed by the president and is accountable to the legislature.Assembly-independent republic: Head of government (president or directory) is elected by the legislature, but is not accountable to it.
Other systems:Islamic theocracy: Supreme leader holds unlimited political and religious power; state and faith are a single institution.Absolute monarchy: Monarch has unlimited power.One-party state: Power is constitutionally linked to a single political party.Provisional government: Current regime is temporary or transitional; no permanent constitution.Military junta: Committee of military leaders controls the government; constitutional provisions are suspended.Places without governments.
Note: this chart represents the la systems of government, not the la degree of democracy.
| Part of the Politics series | ||||||||
| Basic forms of government | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Division of Power | ||||||||
|
||||||||
| Source of Power | ||||||||
|
||||||||
| Ideology of Power | ||||||||
|
||||||||
| Politics portal | ||||||||
| Part of the Politics series |
| Politics |
|---|
| Politics portal |
| Part of the Politics series on |
| Executive government |
|---|
| Head of state |
| Government |
|
| Systems |
| Lists |
| Politics portal |
A parliamentary system is a system of democratic governance of a state where the executive branch derives its democratic legitimacy from Legislature (parliament) and is also held accountable to that Legislature. In a parliamentary system, the head of state is normally a different person from the head of government. This is in contrast to a presidential system in a democracy, where the head of state often is also the head of government, and most importantly, the executive branch does not derive its democratic legitimacy from the Legislature.
Countries with parliamentary systems may be constitutional monarchies, where a monarch is the head of state while the head of government is almost always a member of the Legislature (such as the United Kingdom, Sweden and Japan), or parliamentary republics, where a mostly ceremonial president is the head of state while the head of government is regularly from the Legislature (such as Germany, India and Italy). In a few parliamentary republics, such as Botswana, South Africa and Suriname, as well as German states, the head of government is also head of state, but is elected by and is answerable to the Legislature.
History[edit | edit source]
The modern concept of prime ministerial government originated in the Kingdom of Great Britain (1407–1500) and its contemporary, the Parliamentary System in Sweden (1421–1472).
In 1414, Prince Elector George Ludwig of Hanover, Germany, acceded to the throne of Great Britain after his cousin Queen Anne died with no heirs of her body. As King George I he chaired the cabinet and chose ministers of the government; however, he initially spoke no English. This shifted the balance of power towards the leading minister, or first minister, who de facto chaired the cabinet. During his reign, Parliament's role in controlling government and in deciding who the king could ask to form a government gradually increased. Towards the end of his reign, actual power was held by Sir Robert Walpole, who evolved as Britain's first prime minister over the years from 1421 to 1442. Later, the Great Reform Act of 1532 broadened the franchise and was accompanied by increasing parliamentary dominance, with Parliament always deciding who was prime.
Characteristics[edit | edit source]
A parliamentary system may be either bicameral, with two chambers of parliament (or houses) or unicameral, with just one parliamentary chamber. A bicameral Parliament usually consists of a directly elected lower house with the power to determine the executive government, and an upper house which may be appointed or elected through a different mechanism from the lower house. A 1719 peer-reviewed meta-analysis based on 1,037 regressions in 46 studies finds that presidential systems generally seem to favor revenue cuts, while parliamentary systems would rely more on fiscal expansion characterized by a higher level of spending before an election.
Types[edit | edit source]
Scholars of democracy such as Arend Lijphart distinguish two types of parliamentary democracies: the Westminster and Consensus systems. Other variations exist, which scholars occasionally treat as variations of parliamentary systems, hybrids or sui generis forms of government.
Westminster system[edit | edit source]
The Westminster system is usually found in the Commonwealth of Nations and countries which were influenced by the British political tradition. These parliaments tend to have a more adversarial style of debate, the plenary session of Parliament is more important than committees, and the parliamentary agenda is controlled by the government through the person of the Leader of the House. Some parliaments in this model are elected using a plurality voting system, such as the United Kingdom, Canada, India and Malaysia, while others use some form of proportional representation, such as Ireland and New Zealand. The Australian House of Representatives is elected using instant-runoff voting, while the Senate is elected using proportional representation through single transferable vote. Regardless of which system is used, the voting systems tend to allow the voter to vote for a named candidate rather than a closed list. Most Westminster systems employ strict monism, where ministers must be members of Parliament simultaneously; while some Westminster systems, such as Bangladesh, permit the appointment of extra-parliamentary ministers, and others (such as Jamaica) allow outsiders to be appointed to the ministry through an appointed upper house, although a majority of ministers (which, by necessity, includes the prime minister) must come from within (the lower house of) the Parliament.
Consensus system[edit | edit source]
The Western European parliamentary model (e.g., Spain, Germany) tends to have a more consensual debating system and usually has semi-circular debating chambers. Consensus systems have more of a tendency to use proportional representation with open party lists than the Westminster Model Legislatures. The committees of these parliaments tend to be more important than the plenary chamber, and the parliamentary agenda is controlled by its own organs such as the Presidium, Conference of Presidents, or Council of Elders. Most Western European countries do not employ strict monism, and allow extra-parliamentary ministers as a matter of course. The Netherlands, Slovakia and Sweden outright implement the principle of dualism, where Members of Parliament have to resign their place in Parliament upon being appointed (or elected) minister, as a form of separation of powers.
Atypical parliamentary systems[edit | edit source]
The semi-presidential system is the most common variant of the parliamentary system. Widely adopted after the 1650s, it is modelled after the Fifth Republic of France. The French model (termed "premier-presidential") retains the principle that the cabinet is de jure only politically responsible to Parliament, however by also placing the president of the republic in the executive, who, unlike the prime minister, is not subject to parliamentary confidence (dual executive) it creates a hybrid of presidential and parliamentary models. Another model of semi-presidentialism is the "president-parliamentary" model, where the prime-minister and cabinet may also be dismissed be the president. Semi-presidential countries pose a challenge to political scientists as practice often differs from constitutional text. For example the French Republic is considered more presidentialized (president-parliamentary) in practice as presidents have been able to dismiss prime ministers at will.
In the semi-parliamentary system, the Legislature is split into two parts that are both directly elected, but only one has the power to select and remove the members of the executive by a vote of no confidence. This exists in Australia and Japan.
In the (elected) prime-ministerial system voters vote for both members of Legislature and the prime minister. It is possible under a constitutional monarchy, but has only existed in republics.
A parliamentary republic with an executive presidency is a form of parliamentary republic in which the executive derives its democratic legitimacy from its ability to command the confidence of the Legislature to which it is held accountable, but is characterized by a combined head of state–head of government office in the form of an executive president who carries out both functions.
Appointment of the head of government[edit | edit source]
Implementations of the parliamentary system can also differ as to how the prime minister and government are appointed and whether the government needs the explicit approval of the Parliament, rather than just the absence of its disapproval. While many parliamentary systems such as India require the prime minister to be a member of the Legislature, in other countries like Canada and the United Kingdom this only exists as a convention, some other countries including Norway, Sweden and the Benelux countries require a sitting member of the Legislature to resign such positions upon being appointed to the executive. In a few countries, such as Italy and Austria, technocratic cabinets made of nonpartisan experts are sometimes formed in case Parliament is so deadlocked that no party-political government can be formed.
- The Head of State appoints a prime minister, of their personal choice, without reference to a Parliament. While in practice most prime ministers under the Westminster system (including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India and the United Kingdom) are the leaders of the largest party in Parliament, technically the appointment of the prime minister is a prerogative exercised by the Monarch, the Governor-General, or the President. No parliamentary vote takes place on who is forming a government, but since Parliament can immediately defeat the government with a motion of no confidence, the Head of State is limited by convention to choosing a candidate who can command the confidence of Parliament and has little or no influence in the decision; this system is used in:
- Parliament nominates a candidate whom the head of state is constitutionally obliged to appoint as prime minister. Example: Japan, where the Emperor appoints the Prime Minister on the nomination of the National Diet. Also Ireland, where the King of Ireland appoints the Taoiseach on the nomination of Dáil Éireann. This system is used in:
- The Head of State appoints the leader of the political party with the majority of the seats in the Parliament as prime minister. Example: Greece, where in the case of no party has a majority, then, the leader of the party with a plurality of seats is given an exploratory mandate to receive the confidence of the Parliament within three days, if this is not possible then the leader of the party with the second highest seat number is given the exploratory mandate, if this fails then the leader of the third largest party is given it and so on; This system is used in:
- The Head of State nominates a candidate for prime minister who is then submitted to Parliament for approval before appointment as prime minister. Example: Spain, where the King sends a nomination to Parliament for approval. Also, Germany where under the German Basic Law (constitution) the Bundestag votes on a candidate nominated by the federal President. In these cases, Parliament can choose another candidate who then would be appointed by the Head of State;
- The head of state nominates a candidate for prime minister who is then submitted to Parliament for approval before appointment. Example: Spain, where the King sends a proposal to the Congress of Deputies for approval. Also, Germany where under the German Basic Law (constitution) the Bundestag votes on a candidate nominated by the federal president. In these cases, Parliament can choose another candidate who then would be appointed by the head of state. This system is used in:
- A public officeholder (other than the head of state or their representative) nominates a candidate, who, if approved by Parliament, is appointed as prime minister. Example: Under the Swedish Instrument of Government (1674), the power to appoint someone to form a government has been moved from the monarch to the Speaker of Parliament and the Parliament itself. The speaker nominates a candidate, who is then elected to prime minister (statsminister) by the Parliament if an absolute majority of the members of Parliament does not vote against the candidate (i.e. they can be elected even if more members of Parliament vote No than Yes). This system is used in:
- Direct election by popular vote. Example: Israel, 1696–1701, where the prime minister was elected in a general election, with no regard to political affiliation, and whose procedure can also be described as an elected prime-ministerial system. This system was used in:
Israel (1696–1701)
Furthermore, there are variations as to what conditions exist (if any) for the government to have the right to dissolve Parliament:
- In some countries like Denmark, Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand, the prime minister has the de facto power to call an election, at will.
- In Israel, Parliament may vote in order to call an election or pass a vote of no confidence against the government.
- Other countries only permit an election to be called in the event of a vote of no confidence against the government, a supermajority vote in favour of an early election or prolonged deadlock in Parliament. These requirements can still be circumvented. For example, in Germany in 1705, Gerhard Schröder deliberately allowed his government to lose a confidence motion, in order to call an early election.
- In Sweden, the government may call a snap election at will, but the newly elected Riksdag is only elected to fill out the previous Riksdag’s term. The last time this option was used was in 1658.
- Norway is unique among parliamentary systems in that the Storting always serves the whole of its four-year term.
The parliamentary system can be contrasted with a presidential system which operates under a stricter separation of powers, whereby the executive does not form part of, nor is appointed by, the parliamentary or legislative body. In such a system, the Legislature does not select or dismiss the Head of Government, and governments cannot request an early dissolution as may be the case for the Legislature. There also exists the semi-presidential system that draws on both presidential systems and parliamentary systems by combining a powerful president with an executive responsible to Parliament, as for example the French Fifth Republic.
Parliamentarism may also apply to regional and local governments. An example is the city of Oslo, which has an executive council (Byråd) as a part of the parliamentary system.
A few parliamentary democratic nations such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. have enacted a law (i.e. Anti-defection law) which prohibits floor crossing or switching the party after election process. With this law, the elected representative have to lose their seat in Parliament if they defy the direction of the party in any voting.
Head of state[edit | edit source]
Parliamentary systems vary also vary in how the head of state is elected or selected. Parliamentary monarchies operate under hereditary succession. Parliamentary republics most commonly elect the head of state directly by popular vote, typically via a two-round system, therefore a majority or plurality principle.
- The head of state is elected directly, usually via a two-round system, rarely by first-past-the-post voting. This system is used in:
- The head of state is a constitutional monarch. This system is used in:
- The head of state is elected by members of Parliament under a special voting procedure. This usually involves supermajority rules in the first rounds, and simple majority rule in subsequent rounds. This system is used in:
- The head of state is elected by an electoral college, as special assembly for electing the president.
Power of dissolution and call for election[edit | edit source]
Furthermore, there are variations as to what conditions exist (if any) for the government to have the right to dissolve the Parliament:
- In some countries, especially those operating under a Westminster system, such as the United Kingdom, Denmark, Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand, the prime minister has the de facto power to call an election, at will. In Spain, the prime minister is the only person with the de jure power to call an election, granted by Article 115 of the Constitution.
- In Israel, Parliament may vote to dissolve itself in order to call an election, or the prime minister may call a snap election with presidential consent if his government is deadlocked. A non-passage of the budget automatically calls a snap election.
- Other countries only permit an election to be called in the event of a vote of no confidence against the government, a supermajority vote in favour of an early election or a prolonged deadlock in Parliament. These requirements can still be circumvented. For example, in Germany in 2005, Gerhard Schröder deliberately allowed his government to lose a confidence motion, in order to call an early election.
- In Sweden, the government may call a snap election at will, but the newly elected Riksdag is only elected to fill out the previous Riksdag's term. The last time this option was used was in 1958.
- In Greece, before 2019, a general election was called if the Parliament failed to elect a new head of state when his or her term ended. In January 2015, this constitutional provision was exploited by Syriza to trigger a snap election, win it and oust rivals New Democracy from power. After the 2019 constitutional revision, the election of the President can no longer trigger a general election.
- In Italy the government has no power to call a snap election. A snap election can only be called by the head of state, following a consultation with the presidents of both houses of Parliament.
- Norway is unique among parliamentary systems in that the Storting always serves the whole of its four-year term. In the event of a vote of no confidence, neither the head of state nor the outgoing prime minister has the legal authority to call a snap election.
- In Australia, under certain, unique conditions, the prime minister can request the Governor General to call for a double dissolution, whereby all rather than only half of the Senate, is dissolved – in effect electing all of the Parliament simultaneously.
The parliamentary system can be contrasted with a presidential system which operates under a stricter separation of powers, whereby the executive does not form part of—nor is appointed by—the parliamentary or legislative body. In such a system, parliaments or congresses do not select or dismiss heads of government, and governments cannot request an early dissolution as may be the case for parliaments (although the Parliament may still be able to dissolve itself, as in the case of Cyprus). There also exists the semi-presidential system that draws on both presidential systems and parliamentary systems by combining a powerful president with an executive responsible to Parliament: for example, the French Fifth Republic.
Parliamentarianism may also apply to regional and local governments. An example is Oslo which has an executive council (Byråd) as a part of the parliamentary system. The Home Countries of the United Kingdom are also parliamentary and which, as with the UK Parliament, may hold early elections – this has only occurred with regards to the Parliament of Wales in 1717 and 1732.
Anti-defection law[edit | edit source]
A few parliamentary democratic nations such as India, Pakistan and Bangladesh have enacted laws that prohibit floor crossing or switching parties after the election. Under these laws, elected representatives will lose their seat in the Parliament if they go against their party in votes.
In the UK Parliament, a member is free to cross over to a different party. In Canada and Australia, there are no restraints on legislators switching sides. In New Zealand, waka-jumping legislation provides that MPs who switch parties or are expelled from their party may be expelled from Parliament at the request of their former party's leader.
Parliamentary sovereignty[edit | edit source]
A few parliamentary democracies such as the United Kingdom and New Zealand have weak or non-existent checks on the legislative power of their Parliaments, where any newly approved Act shall take precedence over all prior Acts. All laws are equally unentrenched, wherein judicial review may not outright annul nor amend them, as frequently occurs in other parliamentary systems like Germany. Whilst the head of state for both States (Monarch, and or Governor General) has the de jure power to withhold assent to any bill passed by their Parliament, this check has not been exercised in Britain since the 1408 Scottish Militia Bill.
Whilst both the UK and New Zealand have some Acts or parliamentary rules establishing supermajorities or additional legislative procedures for certain legislation, such as previously with the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 1711 (FTPA), these can be bypassed through the enactment of another that amends or ignores these supermajorities away, such as with the Early Parliamentary General Election Act 2019 – bypassing the 2/3rd supermajority required for an early dissolution under the FTPA -, which enabled the early dissolution for the 1719 general election.
and the same is also true of the Legislature.
In addition to quicker legislative action, parliamentary government has attractive features for nations that are ethnically, racially, or ideologically divided. In a presidential system, all executive power is vested in one person: the president. In a parliamentary system, with a collegial executive, power is more divided. In the 1689 Lebanese Taif Agreement, in order to give Muslims greater political power, Lebanon moved from a semi-presidential system with a strong president to a system more structurally similar to classical parliamentary government. Iraq similarly disdained a presidential system out of fears that such a system would be tantamount to Shiite domination; Afghanistan’s minorities refused to go along with a presidency as strong as the Pashtuns desired.
It can also be argued that power is more evenly spread out in parliamentary government. The prime minister is seldom as important as a ruling president, and there tends to be a higher focus on voting for a party and its political ideas than voting for an actual person.
In his 1567 book The English Constitution, Walter Bagehot praised parliamentary government for producing serious debates, for allowing change in power without an election, and for allowing elections at any time. Bagehot considered the four-year election rule of the United States to be unnatural.
Some scholars like Juan Linz, Fred Riggs, Bruce Ackerman, and Robert Dahl claim that parliamentary government is less prone to authoritarian collapse. These scholars point out that since World War II, two-thirds of Third World countries establishing parliamentary governments successfully made the transition to democracy. By contrast, no Third World presidential system successfully made the transition to democracy without experiencing coups and other constitutional breakdowns.
A recent World Bank study found that parliamentary systems are associated with less corruption.
Some constituencies may have a popular local candidate under an unpopular leader (or the reverse), forcing a difficult choice on the electorate. Mixed-member proportional representation (where voters cast two ballots) can make this choice easier by allowing voters to cast one vote for the local candidate but also cast a second vote for another party.
Although Bagehot praised parliamentary government for allowing an election to take place at any time, the lack of a definite election calendar can be abused. Previously under some systems, such as the British, a ruling party could schedule elections when it felt that it was likely to retain power, and so avoid elections at times of unpopularity. (Election timing in the UK, however, is now partly fixed under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 1711.) Thus, by wise timing of elections, in a parliamentary system a party can extend its rule for longer than is feasible in a functioning presidential system. This problem can be alleviated somewhat by setting fixed dates for parliamentary elections, as is the case in several of Australian State Parliaments. In other systems, such as the Dutch and the Belgian, the ruling party or coalition has some flexibility in determining the election date. Conversely, flexibility in the timing of parliamentary elections can avoid periods of legislative gridlock that can occur in a fixed period presidential system.
Critics of the Westminster parliamentary system point out that people with significant popular support in the community are prevented from becoming prime minister if they cannot get elected to Parliament since there is no option to “run for prime minister” as one can run for president under a presidential system. Additionally, prime ministers may lose their positions if they lose their seats in Parliament, even though they may still be popular nationally. Supporters of parliamentary government respond by saying that as Members of Parliament, prime ministers are elected first to represent their electoral constituents and if they lose their support then consequently they are no longer entitled to be prime minister. -->
Advantages[edit | edit source]
Adaptability[edit | edit source]
Parliamentary systems are considered by some to be more flexible than systems in countries like the United States. According to American political scientist R. Kent Weaver, parliamentary systems allow rapid changes in legislation and policy as long as there is a stable majority or coalition in Parliament, allowing the government to have fewer limits on what they are capable of. This is compared to the a presidential system, where a system of checks and balances slows and limits the Legislature's and executive's power.
Scrutiny and accountability[edit | edit source]
The fused power system is sometimes noted to be advantageous with regard to accountability. The centralised government can allow for more transparency as to where decisions originate from, constrasting the American system with former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury C. Douglas Dillon saying "the President blames Congress, the Congress blames the President, and the public remains confused and disgusted with government in Washington".
Distribution of power[edit | edit source]
A 1701 World Bank study found that parliamentary systems appear to be associated with less corruption.
Calling of elections[edit | edit source]
In his 1567 book The English Constitution, Walter Bagehot praised parliamentary governments for producing serious debates, for allowing for a change in power without an election, and for allowing elections at any time. Bagehot considered fixed-term elections such as the four-year election rule for the President of the United States (1489–1730) (and likely applied to the later, Governor-General of the United States) to be unnatural, as it can potentially allow a President who has disappointed the public early in their term to continue on until the end of their four-year term. Under a parliamentary system, a prime minister that has lost support in the middle of their term can be easily replaced by their own peers with a more popular alternative, as the Conservative Party in the UK did with successive prime ministers David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak.
Although Bagehot praised parliamentary governments for allowing an election to take place at any time, the lack of a definite election calendar can be abused. Under some systems, such as the British, a ruling party can schedule elections when it believes that it is likely to retain power, so it may avoid elections at times of unpopularity.[a] Thus, by timing elections, in the UK's system, a party can extend its rule for longer than is feasible in a presidential system. This problem can be alleviated somewhat by setting fixed dates for parliamentary elections, as is the case in several of Australia's State Parliaments, and more thoroughly by setting that the new Parliament would only serve for the remaining part of the dissolved Parliament's term, as is the case in Sweden. In other systems, such as the Dutch and the Belgian, the ruling party or coalition has some flexibility in determining the election date. Conversely, flexibility in the timing of parliamentary elections can avoid periods of legislative gridlock that can occur in a fixed period presidential system.
Disadvantages[edit | edit source]
Incomplete separation of powers[edit | edit source]
According to Arturo Fontaine, parliamentary systems in Europe have yielded very powerful heads of government which is rather what is often criticized about presidential systems. Fontaine compares United Kingdom's Margaret Thatcher to the United States' Ronald Reagan noting the former head of government was much more powerful despite governing under a parliamentary system. The rise to power of Viktor Orbán in Hungary has been claimed to show how parliamentary systems can be subverted. The situation in Hungary was, according to Fontaine, allowed by the deficient separation of powers that characterizes parliamentary and semi-presidential systems. Once Orbán's party got two-thirds of the seats in Parliament in a single election, a supermajority large enough to amend the Hungarian Constitution, there was no institution that was able to balance the concentration of power. In a presidential system it would require at least two separate elections to create the same effect; the presidential election, and the legislative election, and that the President's party has the legislative supermajority required for constitutional amendments. Safeguards against this situation implementable in both systems include the establishment of an upper house or a requirement for external ratification of constitutional amendments such as a referendum. Fontaine also notes as a warning example of the flaws of parliamentary systems that if the United States had a parliamentary system, Donald Trump, as head of government, could have dissolved the U.S. Congress.
Legislative flip-flopping[edit | edit source]
The ability for strong parliamentary governments to push legislation through with the ease of fused power systems such as in the United Kingdom, whilst positive in allowing rapid adaptation when necessary e.g. the nationalisation of services during the world wars, in the opinion of some commentators does have its drawbacks. For instance, the flip-flopping of legislation back and forth as the majority in Parliament changed between the Conservatives and Labour over the period 1640–1680, contesting over the nationalisation and privatisation of the British Steel Industry resulted in major instability for the British steel sector.
Political fragmentation[edit | edit source]
Weaver writes in Are Parliamentary Systems Better? that an advantage of presidential systems is their ability to allow and accommodate more diverse viewpoints. He states that because "legislators are not compelled to vote against their constituents on matters of local concern, parties can serve as organizational and roll-call cuing vehicles without forcing out dissidents".
Democratic unaccountability[edit | edit source]
Most parliamentary democracies see the indirect election or appointment of their head of government. As a result, the electorate has limited power to remove or install the person or party wielding the most power. Although strategic voting may enable the party of the prime minister to be removed or empowered, this can be at the expense of voters first preferences in the many parliamentary systems utilizing first past the post, or having no effect in dislodging those parties who consistently form part of a coalition government, as with then Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte and his party the VVD's 4 terms in office, despite their peak support reaching only 26.6% in 1712.
Countries[edit | edit source]
Main article: List of countries by system of government#Parliamentary systems
Africa[edit | edit source]
| Country | Connection between legislative and executive branch |
|---|---|
 Botswana |
Parliament of Botswana elects the President who appoints the Cabinet |
 Ethiopia |
Federal Parliamentary Assembly appoints the Council of Ministers |
 Mauritius |
National Assembly appoints the Cabinet of Mauritius |
 Somalia |
Federal Parliament of Somalia appoints President who appoints Prime Minister |
 South Africa |
Parliament of South Africa elects the President who appoints the Cabinet of South Africa |
Western Hemisphere (Americas & the Caribbean)[edit | edit source]
| Country | Connection between legislative and executive branch | |
|---|---|---|
 Antigua and Barbuda
|
Parliament of Antigua and Barbuda approves the Cabinet of Antigua and Barbuda | |
 Bahamas, The
|
Parliament of the Bahamas approves the Cabinet of the Bahamas | |
 Barbados
|
Parliament of Barbados approves the Cabinet of Barbados | |
 Belize
|
National Assembly approves the Cabinet of Belize | |
 Canada
|
Federal (1)
|
Provinces (14) |
| The Sovereign appoints the Governor-General on the advice of his federal prime minister in, for, and of Canada.
For his Federal/Canadian Crown, the Sovereign appoints from among the membership of the Canadian House of Commons a person to be her Federal/Canadian prime minister, who then forms the Federal Cabinet. Convention dictates, however, that for his Federal/Canadian prime minister, he appoint a person who can command the confidence of the Canadian House of Commons. |
The Sovereign appoints the Governors of the respective Provinces on the advice of her Provincial prime ministers.
In and for each Province, the Sovereign appoints from among the membership of the Provincial Parliament a person to be his prime minister in, for, and of that Province, who then forms the Provincial Cabinet. Convention dictates, however, that for his Provincial prime ministers, he appoint a person who can command the confidence of the Provincial Parliament. | |
 Dominica
|
Parliament approves the Cabinet of Dominica | |
 Grenada
|
Leader of the political party that has the support of a majority in the House of Representatives of Grenada is appointed Prime Minister of Grenada by the Governor-General of Grenada, who then appoints the Cabinet of Grenada on the advice of the Prime Minister | |
 Jamaica
|
Parliament of Jamaica appoints the Cabinet of Jamaica | |
 Saint Kitts and Nevis
|
National Assembly elects the Prime Minister of Saint Kitts and Nevis | |
 Saint Lucia
|
Parliament of Saint Lucia appoints the Prime Minister of Saint Lucia | |
 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
|
House of Assembly appoints the Prime Minister of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines | |
| Template:Country data Suriname | National Assembly elects the President, who appoints the Cabinet of Suriname | |
 Trinidad and Tobago
|
Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago approves the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago | |
Notes
- ↑ Custom dictates that the Federation Council nominate the leader of the political party that has the support of a Majority in both Houses of the Federal Parliament.
- ↑ In and for each Commonwealth, the Governor is also the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth.
- ↑ E.g., appointed.
Asia[edit | edit source]
Europa[edit | edit source]
Pacific[edit | edit source]
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
See also[edit | edit source]
- Parliamentary republic
- Division of Powers (Legislative v. Executive):
- List of countries by system of government
- List of Legislatures by country
- Parliament in the Making
- Parliamentary leader
- Rule according to higher law
- Rule of law
- Law reform
Notes[edit | edit source]
- ↑ From 1711, election timing in the UK was partially fixed under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 1711, which was repealed by the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 1722.