Is a parliamentary democracy better/worse than an executive democracy? Does it vary by situation?

Question

The US is sometimes accused of having a 'third-world democracy'. While I think that's largely hyperbole, I feel like there might be a grain of truth in it - that too much power is granted to the executive. The US model does have various checks and balances thru it's tripartite division of government, I'd argue not enough, but they're there and do some kind of job, and that's not really where I want to go with this question.

What I am suggesting is that it's a tremendously dangerous model to export to other countries. Even if you believe in the US model in the US, it required a very unique set of circumstances when founded for it to work, including, importantly, a shared aim/idealogy . An executive model democracy in the second/third world is incredibly dangerous and is crippling the supposed aim of the democratic process: representative government. In terms of representing the electorate an executive democracy in the third world is hard to distinguish from a dictatorship. Thoughts?

Answer 1

It varies. And I agree with your overall assessment above.

An executive democracy works better where there is a strong national unity behind the leader, and where the leader is willing to set aside partisan goals for the benefit of everybody. It requires allegiance first to the nation as a whole, both for the citizens and for the leader. And it requires tolerance of differences and a willingness to work with those who may disagree with you. Something America has dramatically lost over the past century.

Where there is partisan feuding and people can't get along, or where there is the strong potential for abuse by an executive, the parliamentary system provides more internal (as opposed to inter-branch) checks and balances.

Answer 2

Parliamentary is a lot better. In a Democracy like the USA, Brazil
and others, "once in, twice screwed"
The guy is in charge for four years and if not all power he has "veto"
power that can make or break a nation. The only caution required is
to maintain majority in Congress and Senate. In Brazil the guy can
stay for re-election and distribute wealth for political reasons.
Certainly everybody knows what is going on in Brazil? Even worse,
the president can issue a Presidential project to congress and, if not
approved, he can sign and empower it himself!
In a Parliamentary system, if the man does not please and keep
majority, he is substituted at any time, and all MPs have to keep
their own seat by being re-elected, therefore it is the common man
that actually rules in a Parliamentary system. Parliament all the
way.

Answer 3

Executive-model democracies are prone to become de facto dictatorships (viz Russia). Moreover, they tend to insulate the executive officer from consequences. For example, in a parliamentary system, the Bush government would have long ago fallen in the face of popular dissatisfaction, new elections would have been called, and so on. But he's an executive with a fixed term, and we're stuck with him.

Answer 4

Our sense of democracy is probably unsuitable for any politically developing country. Look at how many years we've been at it and we still haven't got it right. What we should be promoting is good governance, whether it fits in to our model or not. Most developing countries are less than one hundred years old and still steeped in tribalism. Our system developed over hundreds of years may not be suitable for them at their stage of political development. Give them slack, give them advice, give them aid and make it have only one criteria, that they care and consider the wishes and needs of all of their people.