Final answer:
The parliamentary system may come closer to the ideal of government accountability in a democracy because the executive is directly accountable to parliament and can be removed by a vote of no confidence, maintaining a direct link between government actions and the electorate's will.
Step-by-step explanation:
When considering which form of government—parliamentary or presidential—comes closer to the ideal of being accountable to the people, it's necessary to examine how each system operates. In a parliamentary system, the executive is directly accountable to the legislature and, by extension, to the citizens since the executive must maintain the confidence of the directly elected parliamentary members. If the government performs unsatisfactorily, it can be challenged and possibly removed through a vote of no confidence. This creates a close link between the government's actions and the will of the electorate.
Conversely, the presidential system features a separation of powers where the president, as chief executive, is elected independently of the legislature and serves a fixed term. Although the president can be subjected to checks and balances by the legislative branch, and impeached in cases of misconduct, there isn't the same level of immediate political accountability as in a parliamentary system since the president doesn't depend on the legislative majority to stay in office.
In summary, while both systems aim to embody democratic principles, the parliamentary system may come closer to the ideal of accountability to the people in the day-to-day conduct of government due to the direct mechanism of confidence and the potential for a change in leadership if the government fails to satisfy the electorate's representatives in parliament.