Parliamentary or presidential government

Government is effective because it rests on the confidence of the assembly and so can, in most cases, ensure that its legislative programme is passed. In short, government can get things done. However, responsible government is maintained because the government can only govern as long as it retains the confidence of the assembly. In theory, the assembly has the upper hand because it has the ultimate power, which is the ability to remove the government.
             Unfortunately, however, parliamentary systems often fail to live up to these high expectations. Certainly, there are examples such as Sweden in which the assembly (the Riksdag) exerts a strong policy influence without threatening to immobilise the workings of government. However, parliamentary government is often associated with the problem of executive domination. This is the case in the UK, where a combination of strict party discipline and a disproportional electoral system normally allows government to control Parliament through a cohesive and reliable majority in the House of Commons (HOC.) The UK has therefore repeatedly been called an "elected dictatorship." .
             Parliamentary systems have also been linked with week government and political instability. This usually occurs when the party system is fractured, and it is often associated with highly proportional electoral systems. For example, in France between 1945-58, 25 governments came and went. Similar problems have afflicted post World War 2 Italian politics. A polarised multiparty system led to the establishment of no less than 52 governments between 1945-96. .
             The principal alternative to a parliamentary system is a presidential system of government. Presidential systems are based on the strict application of the doctrine of the separation of powers. This ensures that assemblies and executives are formally independent from one another and separately elected. The classic example of this is found in the USA, where the so-called "founding fathers" were particularly anxious to prevent the emergence of an over-strong executive, fearing that presidency might assume the mantle of the British monarchy.