Parliamentary systems
In parliamentary systems, the executive and legislature are fused. Usually, the party or coalition of parties with majority members in the legislature is at the pinnacle of power. It forms government. It determines who will head that government, who will sit in cabinet and who will occupy which portfolio in the cabinet, and in many instances who will occupy important public service positions. Although the function of ‘heading the state’ is a ceremonial function, the party or coalition of parties (except in monarchies) usually gets to choose the head of state as well.
In such a system, state functions are separated from government functions. The head of state under such a system occupies a ceremonial office and presides over non-executive state functions. The head of government obtains his constitutional and legal authority by virtue of controlling the confidence of the majority members of the legislature by virtue of being the leader of the party that garners most seats (whether majority or minority) in a general election. The head of government could also be the leader of a coalition of parties forming a majority in the house. But the crucial issue here is ‘confidence.’ The moment the head of government loses the confidence of the legislature, s/he resigns.
In parliamentary systems where parties or coalition of parties must form and choose their leaders before general elections are held, the resignation or recall of the head of government precipitates an election the result of which leads to the formation of a new government. However, in parliamentary countries where post-election coalitions are allowed, parties go to elections with or without designated leaders, and any designated leaders do not automatically head the subsequently constituted governments. In such situations, the majority party or coalition of parties will name its leader who then will be mandated to form government. The best example here is Israel.
In fact, the leader of the majority party, who must be a legislator in parliamentary systems, is the one mandated to form and head government. S/he therefore plays a dual (executive/legislative) role: as a legislator and as the head of government. Usually, the person who heads government in a parliamentary system is called ‘prime minister’. There are many examples here: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ethiopia, etc. But there are parliamentary systems where the head of government is called ‘president’. The best example is South Africa. In other places, the head of government is called ‘chancellor’ (and the best example is Germany.) The title given to the head of government doesn’t define the system of government. The architecture and design of government does.
The head of government in a parliamentary system chairs cabinet. S/he might or might not have the power to appoint members of the cabinet. In most jurisdictions, the party or coalition leadership submits names and predetermined portfolios that the head of government will usually confirm. The party determines the legislative and policy program for the tenure of the government. In fact, in parliamentary systems, executive decisions are made by the ‘cabinet’, but virtually all of them must be ratified by parliament. The leader or heads of government has some sway, but in practical terms, in a parliamentary system, it’s ‘government by committee’.
In parliamentary systems, therefore, there are numerous inbuilt systems of checks and balances. Although the head of government is not subject to impeachment, s/he is susceptible to removal through non-confidence votes, et cetera. The checks and balances are imbedded in the system itself.
To begin with, general elections are won or lost by parties or coalition of parties; not individuals. Therefore, the party or coalition of parties choose – and can fire – the leader when s/he loses their confidence. The best example here is the ‘recall’ of former South African President Thabo Mbeki.
In other words, in a parliamentary system, the mandate to govern is given or withdrawn from a party or coalition of parties by the electorate in free and fair elections. The mandate doesn’t reside in any one individual. The individual head of government owes his position to the party, the members of the legislature and ultimately to the people. The head of government must not just belong to a political party; s/he must have the support and confidence of that party or coalition of parties to govern. There are no “independents” heading governments in parliamentary systems.
Presidential systems
On the other hand, the architecture and design of a presidential system is such that the head of government is also the head of state. S/he alone, as an individual, sits at the top of the governance structure. The head of both government and state is usually called ‘president’. S/he appoints cabinet (with or without parliamentary approval). S/he chairs cabinet. S/he has executive fiat and authority granted by the constitution. S/he is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
In a presidential system, the president can govern with or without any affiliation to a political party or coalition of parties. A presidential candidate is an individual. S/he chooses a running mate based on many factors, none of which must be similar ideology, principles or beliefs. It’s his or her policies, visions, programs, record and performance that will be assessed by the electorate. The presidency is a very powerful institution.
In multi-party democratic presidential systems like the United States of America, Ghana and Brazil – historically – one only ascends to the presidency through a combination of party popularity, policy platform, programs, personal charm, charisma and vision.
But in virtually all presidential systems, coalitions are allowed before – and NOT after – the general elections. This is because a presidential system gives too much power to a single individual. Although there are checks and balances in the system, the over-arching institutional power and authority still resides in the presidency. Even though the legislature and the judiciary are ‘independent’, the president holds great sway, particularly because s/he would most likely be affiliated to the majority party or coalition of parties. S/he would most likely be regarded as the ‘leader’ of the majority party or coalition of parties. S/he has at his or her disposal, access and/or control over immense state resources, which s/he can use to influence parties, the legislature, state institutions and actors.
It is for this reason that the system was designed to allow citizens the opportunity to see, interrogate and assess the presidential candidates’ parties, coalitions, running mates and campaign teams to be able to gauge and determine whether or not to cast their votes in support of them. In essence that’s why the Constitution of Kenya requires a presidential candidate to pick his or her running mate before the general elections. This accords voters a chance to assess both the presidential candidate and his/her running mate. In fact, the assessment of the running mates is as critical as that of the presidential candidate because in the event of death, resignation or incapacity, it is the deputy president who takes over.
This is significantly different from most parliamentary systems where such things routinely lead to fresh elections. The best examples are Canada, Israel and Italy where elections happen almost every year.
Presidential systems don’t allow post-election coalitions because to do so would undermine the very principle of multi-party democracy, which is: different political parties and their leaders are accorded fair and equal opportunity to popularize themselves, their programs, visions and policies in order to win votes. If post-election coalitions were allowed, popular and charismatic leaders may drop their running mates (and choose one from another party) and/or coalitions may choose different presidential candidates, thereby undermining the ‘choices’ voters had made prior to elections.
But the most dangerous scenario is where one becomes president-elect due to personal appeal and popularity, then after elections decides to invite either a majority of parties or all parties into a coalition. Because most political parties in Africa generally and in Kenya specifically are still young, weak and susceptible to that kind of temptation – to be in government – one can foresee a situation where some crafty Machiavellian might ferment chaos in political parties, leading to the death of multi-party democracy.
Indeed, this is what transpired in most African countries following political independence from colonialism. In Kenya, for instance, Jomo Kenyatta and other Kanu leaders orchestrated numerous constitutional amendments (without popular citizens’ participation) that firstly transformed the system of governance from a parliamentary to a ‘mongrel’ system before concentrating all executive power in the hands of one person who happened to be Kenyatta, heading both government and state. Once that happened, Kanu ‘swallowed’ all other opposition parties, rendering Kenya a de facto one party state. That was long before Daniel arap Moi made it a de jure one party state.
Ultimately, all these resulted in unthinkable abuse of power, flagrant human rights abuses, torture, detention without trial, extra-judicial killings, forceful exiles, runaway corruption and the perpetuation of the culture of impunity that have persisted to this day.
In presidential systems, candidates that rank number three or below during the first run and their parties – where or if they belong to any - are allowed to endorse or support a candidate that has emerged number one or two. But they aren’t permitted to form coalitions with any party. After the conclusion of elections, a leader or his party might decide to ‘collaborate’ or ‘cooperate’ with the president’s party or another political party for purposes of pursuing common values, ideals, interests or programs; but they cannot form coalitions with the president’s party. Examples are USA, Ghana, Cote d’Ivoire, Nigeria, et cetera. There is absolutely no presidential system in the entire world where post-election coalitions are allowed. Zilch!
Bipartisan voting in the legislature is allowed. But post-election coalitions aren’t in a presidential system. This is to preserve multi-party democracy and allow it to flourish. It’s also to check the immense powers of the presidency. This structural rule undermines ‘one-man rule’ tendencies that saw Africa turned into strong-men’s experimental laboratories! Kenya must not be the first place where this dangerous experiment will occur.
The writer is the suspended Prime Minister's adviser on coalition affairs. The views expressed here are his own.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment