Question

Note to Students:

The following is designed to begin preparing you for the argument essay prompt that you will see on the
P Exam. On the AP Exam, you will be asked to compare two countries. At this point in the textbook, you
ave studied Mexico, and you have learned some basic information about the parliamentary system in the
ited Kingdom. This question will give you practice at developing an argument in the form of the essay. Late
this book, you will answer questions that are more consistent with the format of the argument question or
e AP Exam.
Develop an argument as to whether parliamentary or presidential systems are better at making effecti-
policy.
Use one or more of the following course concepts in your response:
• Accountability
Transparency
Legitimacy.

Answer 1

Parliamentary systems feature unified government and accountability through potential dissolution, but may lack checks and balances. Presidential systems present clarity in separation of powers and stability, yet can suffer from gridlock. Both aim for legitimacy through their respective approaches to leadership and governance.

Step-by-step explanation:

When debating whether parliamentary or presidential systems are better at making effective policy, it's important to consider the structural differences. In a parliamentary system, the executive is drawn from the legislative body, which can create a unified and coherent policy direction, although in some cases this leads to a lack of checks and balances. However, this system can achieve high levels of accountability as the government can be dissolved if it loses the confidence of the majority. Conversely, a presidential system provides clear separation of powers and transparency, reducing the risk of any single branch dominating the state. Yet this system might lead to political gridlock, especially if different parties control different branches, hindering effective policy-making.

A key aspect of this discussion is how each system views and enforces accountability. In parliamentary systems, the prime minister can be removed through a vote of no confidence, ensuring that they must maintain the support of their party and the parliament to enact policy. Presidential systems, however, rely on elections and the potential for impeachment as forms of holding leaders to account, which may be less direct and immediate.

Both systems strive for legitimacy through different means. Parliamentary systems may offer more responsiveness and flexibility, adapting to citizens' needs through confidence measures, whereas presidential systems draw legitimacy from a more stable, fixed-term executive leadership that is directly elected by the people.