Who is stronger a President or Prime Minister?

[Farnan]

Which position is stronger, a president in a Presidential, Montesquieuian Democracy or a Prime Minister in a Parliamentarian democracy?

I know a President is traditionally viewed as stronger, but both Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines and Chun/Roh of South Korea wanted to transition to parliamentary democracies in order that they may maintain power when the life of their dictatorship seemed over.

[Ishoss]

A PM can sit forever (I believe the Norwegian can), a President just for a set number of years (In most cases).

Take your pick.

[cristophe el perno]

In Britain the power of the Prime Minister is not set in stone. The only statement on the role of the PM in whatever constitution we have is that the PM is 'primus inter pares', or first among equals within the cabinet.
The power of the PM depends who the PM is and on the circumstances surrounding them. For example, Harold Wilson was more a follower of the 'primus inter pares' theory, and a lot of his governmetn's descisions were made by the cabinet collectively, whereas Thatcher and Blair have had more presidential leadership styles. John Major was weak because of a divided party and a strong opposition, and the same could be argued of Callaghan 30 years ago and Brown today.
The Prime Minister's power is Britain is reall quite variable, as is I'd imagine the presidential power in other countires, even thsoe with codified constitutions.
It really depends exactly who you are comparing to who.

[removeduser_487563287433]

President, hands down.

[cristophe el perno]

President, hands down.

Surely not neccessarily. The titles of PM and President are used in so many seperate countries.
For example, Israel and Italy have Presidents, but in those countries the Presidents are seen as less important and less powerful than the PMs.

[wilting]

President, hands down.

You should know better Ferrets. Prime Ministers are more powerful simply because the executive sits in the legislature in a parliamentary democracy.

This is particularly true in Europe, due to integration shifting power from parliaments to executives.

Although this is assuming were are not talking about semi-Presidential democracies. (See: France)

[dragonsign]

It depends on the country and what is statet in its constetution. In some countries the President is the strongest and the "leader" of the country, in others the president holds a more sermonial role.

[Atterdag]

A president such as the American holds vastly more power and a far more secure position than e.g. an European PM.

In Denmark for starters, a PM and his cabinet can be removed from office if a majority of the members of parliament vote against them¹.




¹My memory is a tad foggy, but that is somewhat how it works

[Sphere]

The real question is about an independent executive, i.e. the Chief Executive being part of the legislature or not. You can give them whatever title you want.

In the US, the power of the president largely depends on the composition of the congress, and the popularity of the president. They are insulated more from party politics because they are directly elected by the people, so they can make bold/unpopular moves at there own discression. On the flipside though, congressmen are not usually looking for cabinet positions or moving up in the party list by courting executive favor, so they can more freely vote agaisnt presidential policy. Thus a twist of popular opinion or rebalance of power in the congress can completely sap a presidents power to make policy. GWB being the perfect example.

In contrast, a PM always holds a certain level of power because they, by definition, must have the a majority or (plurality in some systems) of pledged votes in the parliament. But, they have to share more power with their cabinet and please the party more, because if they fall out of favor in the party, they can be removed a la Thatcher/Blair. The extreme example is Isreal, were a PM's coalition is a patchwork of small, often hostile party's that must be kept pleased, thus handcuffing the PM from making any drastic decisions.

In the end, an independent executive has a wider range of power, from lame duck (Carter) to near dictator (FDR), while a PM has a more limited though consitent range of power.

[bushbush]

definitely a PM....

president in US is heavily checked in domestic matter by the Congress and the court. He only has "moderate" amount of power in the domestic sphere, though he is very powerful in foreign policy.

prime minister on the other hand, together with the cabinet, is both very powerful in domestic and foreign policy due to the fact that executive and legislative branches are combined into one in the parliamentary system. A PM with a majority party in the parliament can practically make any law he and his cabinet wants too. Can't say the same about president of America.

[Scar Face]

The President has way, way, way, way more power than the Prime Minister...

[bushbush]

The President has way, way, way, way more power than the Prime Minister...

nope. On domestic policy, president has very limited power. Even in foreign policy he is handicapped since the cold war. In military affairs he has to request funds from the Congress, which has a number of veto points that could stop a president's proposal.

President. He might not rule that long, but he's alone at the top. PM's represent their parties and have to make compromises between the other parties. The president can do alot more if he has enough support which he, in a two-party state, nearly always has.

i don't think he is a "alone at the top". he has share a number of duties with the Congress, who often have a different agenda or are totally against him in certain times. a PM is the leader of the majority party most of time. It's so much easier for him to implement his idea without sucking up to various congressmen and senators.

[Scar Face]

nope. On domestic policy, president has very limited power. Even in foreign policy he is handicapped since the cold war. In military affairs he has to request funds from the Congress, which has a number of veto points that could stop a president's proposal.

Because thats how it works? No. Presidential systems allow the gradual centralization of power, parliamentary systems do not. You get booted out if we don't even like your budget- America you can just throw any bill out there and exert political pressure until everyone falls to your whim.

As others have said, Parliamentary systems allow for a multi party system, allowing greater selection amongst parties. The Democrats and Republicans aren't even real parties. They are just a haphazard collection of peoples and ideologies with conflicting goals, and only a vague remote similarity towards one another. If America had a parliamentary system, six+ parties would have representation more than likely. Your leader would be a first amongst equals, rather than "the commander and chief"

[Dr. Croccer]

President. He might not rule that long, but he's alone at the top. PM's represent their parties and have to make compromises between the other parties. The president can do alot more if he has enough support which he, in a two-party state, nearly always has.

[Farnan]

President. He might not rule that long, but he's alone at the top. PM's represent their parties and have to make compromises between the other parties. The president can do alot more if he has enough support which he, in a two-party state, nearly always has.

How about Clinton and Bush's last two years? Where the branches are split.

[Dr. Croccer]

How about Clinton and Bush's last two years? Where the branches are split.

That was their own doing.

don't think he is a "alone at the top". he has share a number of duties with the Congress, who often have a different agenda or are totally against him in certain times. a PM is the leader of the majority party most of time. It's so much easier for him to implement his idea without sucking up to various congressmen and senators.

Not really. For example, Obama now has the support of around half of the country + several Republican turncoats. In comparison, my PM, Balkenende, is the leader of a party that has barely more seats than the next two parties, that very often do not agree. If it weren't for the fact that he forms coalitions with the others and is conformist, he would have little to no power.

[bushbush]

Not really. For example, Obama now has the support of around half of the country + several Republican turncoats. In comparison, my PM, Balkenende, is the leader of a party that has barely more seats than the next two parties, that very often do not agree. If it weren't for the fact that he forms coalitions with the others and is conformist, he would have little to no power.

i am talking about PMs like in Canada and Britain, where they almost always have majority seats in parliament. Obama, even when he has congress' support (which is rare, he most likely will lose the control of at least the senator or the house next election), he has to haggle with his own party because congressional democracts have their own agendas. And he has to meet the demands of repubilcans because they can still filibuster his ass.

that won't happen in Canada or UK if a majority party is there. PM is both the party leader and the executive leader. If he wants to pass a law, he can use party discpline to force backbenchers to vote so. That doesnn't happen in US at all.

Because thats how it works? No. Presidential systems allow the gradual centralization of power, parliamentary systems do not. You get booted out if we don't even like your budget- America you can just throw any bill out there and exert political pressure until everyone falls to your whim.

gradual centralization? I never heard of that concept. The only trend there is actually "gradual decentralization". A president once over the honey moon becomes very vulnerable to congress, especially when one of the both houses was controlled by opposition party.

in contrast, majority party would never lose budget vote in UK or Canada and minority coliation historially is rare. So if they have a majority like chretien did in much of 90s, he is almost impossible to oppose.

As others have said, Parliamentary systems allow for a multi party system, allowing greater selection amongst parties. The Democrats and Republicans aren't even real parties. They are just a haphazard collection of peoples and ideologies with conflicting goals, and only a vague remote similarity towards one another. If America had a parliamentary system, six+ parties would have representation more than likely. Your leader would be a first amongst equals, rather than "the commander and chief"

"parliamentary systems allow for a multi party system" is not a good statement. It depends on election method. In Canada and UK there are still big party dominance and majority pary is elected often,even if they don't get over 50% of popular votes due to first past the post system.

[Bovril]

I don't mean to always do this in threads but...

...this is kind of an absurd question. There is no set role for all presidents or all prime ministers across countries, so its not possible to compare the two positions, since they are so far from being homogeneous, especially in the case of Presidents who can be anything from lame figureheads to totalitarian dictators.

[Zhangir]

I'd say it depends a lot!
However, if a PM has an overall majority, loyal party as in its whipped, they are all supportive, loyal, etc., also he has the favour of the constitutional monarch (less important nowadays) then he is unchangeble.

Look at Tony Blair. He had Downing Street aranged as the White House and passed a lot of legislation unpassable before that

Look at Hitler, he started as the PM (chancellor and always wanted it, even though he ran for President in 34)

Look at Stalin, who legaly was not the Head of State but the head of government. Moreover a PM doesnthave to leave office

Look at Putin's russia nowadays. Yea. I d go for powerful PM, although Legally PResident is more powerful. It's just that the PM is always the puppeteer kind of guy if u ask me

[ivan_the_terrible]

Well parliamentary systems typically don't have a full separation of powers. Whichever group controls the legislature controls the executive, in practice. As the leader of this group, the PM certainly has more power concentrated in his hands than a US president ordinarily has.

Of course the President can acquire extensive power with the help of the legislature, as for example Johnson did when Congress passed the Southeast Asia Resolution (following the now infamous 'Gulf of Tonkin Incident'.