State 2 demerit of parliamentary and presidential constitution
2 demerits of parliamentary constitution:
1. Lack of direct accountability: In a parliamentary constitution, the executive branch is formed by the majority party or coalition in the legislature. This creates a potential lack of direct accountability as the executive is not directly elected by the people. Citizens may feel disconnected from the decision-making process and find it difficult to hold the executive branch accountable for their actions.
2. Risk of instability: Parliamentary systems rely on the support of the legislature for the government to successfully function. If the ruling party or coalition loses majority support in parliament, it can lead to a lack of stability and potential frequent changes in government. This instability can disrupt governance, policy implementation, and long-term planning.
2 demerits of a presidential constitution:
1. Separation of powers challenges: A presidential constitution separates powers between the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches. This separation can sometimes lead to conflicts or deadlock between the branches, hindering the efficient functioning of the government. Additionally, it can be challenging to coordinate and implement policies when there are differences and disagreements between the executive and legislative branches.
2. Reduced flexibility and adaptability: Due to the fixed term of the president, a presidential constitution may face challenges in responding quickly to emerging issues. Unlike parliamentary systems, where the ruling party or coalition can easily adapt to changing circumstances, a presidential system may struggle to make necessary changes mid-term. This reduced flexibility and adaptability can be a disadvantage in times of crises or when immediate action is required.