Pros And Cons Of Presidentialism

For new democracies of the developing world, which system— presidentialism or parliamentairsm— is more likely to ensure political stability? Why? And do we have a universal answer for all countries?

Introduction
To scholars, political stability has always been imperative for developing worlds in providing for stable miasma and fostering economic growth. Which electoral system is more conducive to such stability?

This paper shall argue that parliamentarism, but not presidentialism, is more likely to ensure political stability, as the system is more compatible with the stability’s different dimensions. Furthermore, there is no universal answer for all countries, as it wholly depends on the specific context.

Definition
Parliamentarism
The system includes an executive branch (the cabinet) that derives legitimacy from, and holds accountable to, the legislative branch (parliament). The Prime Minster or Premier, heading the executive, is the leader of the majority party or coalition party in the parliament. The executive is monitored and by the parliament and may be ousted by vote of no confidence.

Presidentialism
The system typically includes the president who is chosen independently of legislature, has a fixed term, and has powers independent of the legislature. Giovanni further defines presidentialism where head of state is also head of government, popularly elected, and whom the parliament cannot appoint or remove save by impeachment. A dominant feature includes