Systems of Government Near and Far

By Russell Filip

---

Humanity continues to evolve – if not biologically, then socially. After abandoning their primitive hunter-gatherer roots, humanity has constantly been forming newer and more innovative forms of government. From god-kings to czars and presidents, humanity has never once ceased the pursuit of a better form of government.

The forms of government across the world this post will look at are: monarchies, both absolute and constitutional; direct democracy; representative democracy; and parliamentary based government.  Each of these have unique features which create both distinct advantages and particular disadvantages.

Absolute Monarchy

An absolute monarchy is one in which the king or queen is subject to no law except that of their own. A true absolute monarchy will institute their laws at the whims of the monarch. This provides a very unstable government because there is no principle of stare decisis, in that old laws can be immediately overturned if the monarch wishes.

Additionally, there are virtually no checks and balances because all the power rests in the hands of the monarch. Further, because of how removed the nobility (or those with money) are from the lawmaking process, they have minimal incentive to pay more than lip service to their liege. Any attempt for the liege to collect would require use of force and would likely lead to armed conflict which would be worse for the general population than an impoverished monarch.

There are very few countries that still have absolute monarchies.  Morocco, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and the Vatican are some of the more recognizable countries that operate as absolute monarchies. Out of these, Saudi Arabia and the Vatican have retained their monarchies through religious foundations. North Korea has done so through martial law combined with a religious devotion to their leaders.

Constitutional Monarchy

A constitutional monarchy is similar to an absolute monarchy in that the monarch is the head of the government. Instead of deriving power from a mandate from a god, a constitutional monarch receives power from a constitution which generally limits their power and transitions a large portion of their executive abilities to a parliament or legislative body. However, many constitutional monarchs will retain some of their powers.

In the United Kingdom, the executive branch of the government acts on “Royal Prerogative” on behalf of the crown. This has made the royal family almost completely ornamental. For instance, the Queen has the power to veto any bill passed by parliament and has the ability to declare war.^[i] However, the last royal to use the veto power was Queen Anne in 1708.^[ii] As such, the United Kingdom is considered a ceremonial constitutional monarch which means the monarch is a figurehead with almost no true authority.

The powers under the royal prerogative are: “(a) appointment of Bishops in the Church of England (b) the power to appoint a Government (c) call and dismiss Parliament (d) declare war (e) appoint members of the House of Lords (f) carry out all criminal prosecutions (g) give medals (h) control all the armed forces (i) control police forces (j) pass (or refuse to pass) Acts of Parliament (k) appoint judges and (l) to pardon.”^[iii] The Queen is unable to use most of these powers herself and is constitutionally mandated to abide by the decisions of parliament. As such, parliament has become the executive branch of government.

Pros

The two main benefits of a constitutional monarchy are both derived from the monarch holding their position for life. Since a monarch does not need to worry about elections, they are less likely to be swayed by the current political atmosphere. This is especially useful when the constituents are looking to solve short-term problems with solutions that will be more harmful in the long run.^[iv]

Cons

The most prominent detriment to this system is ironically the same as the benefit –  the monarch’s life term. It is a principle of basic fairness that no one should be in a position of power merely because they were born into the right family. Most individuals in today’s society would agree that a person should be judged on their own merits, not that of their parents.

Countries that still have Constitutional monarchies are still quite prevalent in the modern world, making up nearly a quarter of European country’s forms of government. The most prominent constitutional monarchy is the United Kingdom and its Commonwealth nations. For instance, Canada and Australia, and fourteen other Commonwealth nations, formally recognize Queen Elizabeth II as their sovereign and require her assent by a representative who acts on behalf of her royal prerogative. These Commonwealth realms have elected to keep the Queen above them as she has emergency time powers, which serve as checks and balances to elected officials and prevent dictatorships. There are constitutional monarchies in all parts of the world, with the two most populous being Japan and Thailand.^[v]

Direct Democracy

The hallmark of a direct democracy is that it gives a large amount of legislative power to the average citizen. The two main parts of a direct democracy are referendums and initiatives. Further divided, there are compulsory, voluntary, and popular referendums. Referendums are when a legislative body must consult the public before enacting any legislation. Initiatives are sub-sectioned into indirect and direct initiatives. Both types of initiatives are forms of citizen proposed legislation.

Pros

Switzerland mainly uses popular referendums in their law making.^[vi] After their legislative branch has drafted a particular piece of legislation there is a prescribed amount of time for citizens to make a petition seeking to veto the law. There is a requirement that the petition gets 50,000 signatures before the voting happens.^[vii] Due to their policies allowing citizens to actively and directly participate in democracy, Switzerland’s citizens have a much more impactful say at every level.

Compulsory referendums occur as a matter of law; before legislation can be enacted, the legislature must allow the constituents to vote on the proposed law. For instance, Swiss municipalities are required to give their citizens a vote on every issue above a certain monetary amount, and federally, constitutional changes require a double majority, securing the popular vote and the electoral vote, in order to be enacted. ^[viii]

Voluntary referendums are almost never used as the legislature will take their own opinion over that of their constituents if they are not required to consider their constituents’ judgment.

Another benefit of a direct democracy is recall elections. Recall elections grant constituents the ability to remove officials from office before their term is over. This helps fight corruption by holding legislatures more accountable for their actions.

Direct initiatives are when citizens propose a law, or an amendment to an existing law. After the requirements are met to form a proposition, the new legislation is put onto a ballot for citizens to vote on. This is beneficial as society does not have to wait on politicians to enact legal change.

While bureaucrats are notoriously slow to adopt progressive change, under a system of direct democracy, if the citizens demand change, they are much more likely to see it because they have the tools to enact change themselves.

An indirect initiative follows the same motions, except the legislation is given to legislatures to decide on, not the citizens.^[ix] Citizens will still propose the new or amended law, but instead of voting on it by themselves, a governmental body takes on that responsibility.

Cons

The main con to direct democracy is that it requires the average citizen to be knowledgeable about politics and understand the ramifications of implementing policies. In order to combat this, direct democracies would ideally be slowly introduced into societies at a municipal level to fully integrate and teach citizens the weight of having actual power. ^[x]

There is also the possibility that there would be too many citizens clamoring to have their voices heard. This could lead to no one actually being represented. In addition, there would need to be many intermediary systems of government as a safeguard against impossible and needless pieces of legislation.

Representative

A representative democracy, or indirect democracy, is when citizens only have the voting power to determine who their legislators are. Representatives will generally run for a specific office, the powers and duties of which are delineated by a constitution. Some representatives have the power to unilaterally appoint individuals to specific offices which seems contrary to the principle of a representative democracy.^[xi] This ability to appoint without consulting voters is against the basic principle of representative democracy that offices should be held only by individuals who have been voted in.

Pros

The main pro of a representational democracy is that, theoretically, people’s voices are given equal weight. As most people have a vote and  implicitly agree to follow the outcome of any election, democracy should legitimize the powers of the government and hold them accountable in future elections. Historians and political scientists have generally agreed that there are two competing ideals in a representative democracy; pluralist and Burkean.^[xii]

The pluralist view is that representatives should cast their votes based on the wishes of their constituents. Alternatively, the Burkean view is that representatives should look to the needs of society as a whole. Both of these views stem from the same benefit- that of career politicians. By being fully invested in politics, they are able to better navigate the bureaucratic system and be more efficient legislators. ^[xiii]

Cons

A representative democracy begins to encounter hurdles when the voters are uninformed, and representatives are not incentivized to inform their constituents. The fundamental basis of representative democracy allows for a non-inclusive system, which gives representatives the ability to turn themselves into an elite class that works behind closed doors and despises transparency.

The non-inclusive aspect of a representative democracy occurs because after the citizens have decided who will represent them, they are not involved in the legislative process and have no ability to recall politicians who break their campaign promises. The reason the representatives would not want transparency is because, while their actions are unmonitored, no one will watch them line their pockets. As such, representative systems will almost invariably lead to politicians lining their own pockets to the detriment of the masses. ^[xiv]

Using the higher estimate, during the 2020 American election, only 72% of the population voted in what is undoubtedly one of the most highly contested elections.^[xv] This, unfortunately, is a relatively high percentage with very few countries having voter percentages above 80%.^[xvi] Voter turnout is in decline across the world due to a lack of faith in the institution.

This has led to underrepresented classes being trampled over.^[xvii] When asked what the fundamental issues with the country’s election system are, “Americans are most likely to point to the influence of wealthy people and corporations and the lack of people who are willing or able to vote.”^[xviii] There are also state laws designed to make it more difficult for voters by requiring picture ID.^[xix]

For much of American political history, the critique of the two-party system was not that the parties are too far apart. It is that they are too similar, and that they stand for too little.^[xx]The triple development of

“the nationalization of politics, the geographical-cultural partisan split, and consistently close elections—have reinforced one another, pushing both parties into top-down leadership, enforcing party discipline, and destroying cross-partisan deal making. Voters now vote the party, not the candidate. Candidates depend on the party brand. Everything is team loyalty. The stakes are too high for it to be otherwise.”^[xxi]

These developments have led to the government swinging between a united Democratic government, to a divided government, and finally to a united Republican government before going through the motions again ad infinitum.^[xxii] This stops either party from being able to pursue their actual goals, turning what should be bipartisan collaboration into both sides continually undercutting each other.

This is the fundamental flaw with a two-party system: once both parties are entrenched, all they have to do is convince their voter base that the other party is going to destroy their way of life. At best, each party is merely the lesser of two evils. This system locks voters in and doesn’t allow for true freedom of choice.

In addition, this division along party lines destroys the system of checks and balances that keep a government honest. When the party is unified in Congress and the presidency, there is no incentive for Congress to check and balance the president as their success is dependent on how their voters view the party as a whole, not the individual, nor their policies. Conversely, when the government is split, they will deadlock instead of attempting to find bipartisan relief. This deadlock is created because voters tend to vote for their party, not based on the policies of the individual representative. Only 4% of voters registered as either democratic or republican reported that they did not vote in a straight ticket.^[xxiii]

Parliamentary System

A parliamentary democracy is when the executive can only exercise their constitutional power if they have the support of the legislature. As opposed to a presidential system, the head of state is normally a different person than the head of government. For instance, the Queen of England is the head of state while the prime minister of England is the head of government. The term parliament itself has no set definition with it being used to refer to parliamentary systems as whole instead of just the parliamentary branch, as well as any body of legislatures.

The hallmark of a parliamentary system is that the executive is held accountable to the legislature and may not act unilaterally. Parliament as a branch of government can consist of either one or two bodies. If it takes the unicameral approach, the parliament will consist of one house of elected officials. Under the bicameral approach, parliament consists of a lower house of elected officials and one of appointed officials, although occasionally they are elected through a different process than the lower house.^[xxiv]

Pros

1. Proportional Representation

The most quintessentially fair part of a parliament is that “all votes contribute to the result—not just a plurality, or a bare majority.”^[xxv] This means that instead of a “winner take all” political system, the shares of available seats are divided based on the total percentage of votes. This encourages diversity of ideas and political parties. Under the current American regime, it is nearly impossible for a third-party candidate to secure any seat because they would have to defeat both of the heavyweight parties. Under a parliamentary system, if the third party were to receive 5% of votes, they would then have 5% of the available seats. As long as x% of the population votes for a party, then that party will receive x% of seats.

2. Adaptability

Because there are few legal limits on what parliament can do, as long as one party holds the majority -or more likely, there is a coalition – then change will happen much more rapidly. Coalitions also relate back to proportional representation; theoretically no one political group will perfectly encompass a majority of voters and coalitions will form. This allows for much more bipartisan reform as parties will seek to work together and highlight the benefits and positives of each group.^[xxvi]

3. Accountability

Because there is a fusing between the legislative and executive powers, both branches lose the ability to blame one another. Since all decisions are made by a cohesive body, instead of two opposing entities, they are more streamlined and the citizens know where the laws they must follow are coming from. As such, they are able to hold their legislators more accountable, which will result in fairer laws. In addition, some parliaments, such as that in the UK, have weekly question periods so the actions of the legislature do not escape scrutiny.

4. Distribution of Power

Unlike a presidential system which invests all of its executive power into an individual, a parliamentary system has its executive power divided between a body of government. Since the executive powers of the government are more divided, it becomes harder for any individual to seize power for themselves. Most third-world countries which have successfully transitioned to a democracy have done so by establishing a parliamentary system. Conversely, third-world countries which have attempted to establish a presidential democracy have almost invariably ended up suffering through coups and other systemic governmental breakdowns.^[xxvii]

5. Calling of Elections

‘Calling of elections’ means that there is no set date for elections and parliament can bring an election at any point. Compared to the American system of set terms, this system gives the people more power in determining who their representatives are. For instance, if a president is found to have been a total, catastrophic failure by the end of their first year, the American populace has no recourse but to wait for their term to end or for the legislature to take action. A parliamentary system would encourage the dismal president’s party to attempt to hold a vote in order to replace them with someone better suited for the office.

Cons

1. Legislative Flip Flopping

Since Parliament has very few legal limits on what they can do, if there is a majority then they can push through executive legislation quickly. However, this leads to instability if the majority party changes as all recent legislation will be reviewable, changeable, and removable. This lack of stare decisis can lead to citizens not trusting in the stability of recently passed laws and a general distrust of the system. Although, this can be much more solidly attributed to the voter base changing and their changing ideologies being reflected through their government.

Conclusion

While none of the systems are perfect forms of government, they are each attempting to achieve a harmonious, beneficial government. Many different systems of government have ideals that should be incorporated into a more equitable government. By incorporating the best of different systems, society can learn from the past mistakes of faulty leadership and strive to overcome them.

For instance, humanity saw the fault in absolute monarchies when it gave very limited groups of people absolute power and, as such, society has made strides towards giving power to the average citizen. This eventually led to more representation through elected officials. Finally, the pinnacle of democracy emerged where the people themselves can interact with the legislative process.

In order for any society to thrive, they must constantly seek to innovate and outperform their predecessors . While there is no perfect form of government, it is the pursuit to find one, and improve the lives of the citizenry in the process, which matters.

---

^[i] Heart, What powers does the Queen have?, Heart News, (October 2018), https://www.heart.co.uk/news/what-powers-does-the-queen-have/.

^[ii] Heart, supra note 1.

^[iii]BML, Constitutional Monarchy, British Monarchist League (2014), http://www.monarchist.org.uk/constitutional-monarchy.html.

^[iv] BML, supra note 3.

^[v] Theodore Harvey, Monarchy Populations, Royalty and Monarchy (January 2021), http://www.royaltymonarchy.com/monfacts/monpop.html.

^[vi] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUXkX4U1Ir8

^[vii] Bruno Kaufmann, Modern Direct Democracy, Swiss Democracy Foundation (2018), https://www.eda.admin.ch/dam/PRS-Web/en/dokumente/Moderne_Direkte_Democratie_EN.pdf

^[viii] Micol Lucchi, This is how Switzerland’s direct democracy works, World Economic Forum (July 2017), https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/07/switzerland-direct-democracy-explained/

^[ix] Stephan Kyburz and Stefan Schlegel, 8 Principles of Direct Democracies, Center for Global Development (July 2019), https://www.cgdev.org/blog/8-principles-direct-democracy

^[x] Kyburz and Schlegel, supra note 9

^[xi] Charles Quigley, Constitutional Democracy, Center for Civic Education (2020), https://www.civiced.org/lesson-plans/constitutional-democracy

^[xii] Jonathan Macey, Representative Democracy, Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol’y (1993), https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2649&context=fss_papers

^[xiii] Macey, supra note 12

^[xiv] Julian Bernauer, Nathalie Giger, and Jan Rosset, Mind the Gap, Sage Journals (August 2013),https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0192512113498830

^[xv] Michael McDonald, 2020 November General Election Turnout Rates, United States Elections Project (December 2020), http://www.electproject.org/2020g

^[xvi] Alfonso Ferrufino, Voter Turnout by Country, International IDEA (2020), https://www.idea.int/data-tools/continent-view/Europe/40

^[xvii] Abdurashid Solijonov, Voter Turnout Trends around the World, International IDEA (2016), https://www.idea.int/sites/default/files/publications/voter-turnout-trends-around-the-world.pdf

^[xviii] Alex Vandermass-Peelerm Daniel Cox, Molly Fisch-Friedman, Rob Griffin, Robert P. Jones, American Democracy in Crisis, PRRI (July 2018), https://www.prri.org/research/american-democracy-in-crisis-voters-midterms-trump-election-2018/

^[xix] Crawford v. Marion Cty. Election Bd., 551 U.S. 1192, 128 S. Ct. 33 (2007)

^[xx] Lee Drutman, America is now the Divided Republic the Framers Feared, The Atlantic (January, 2020), https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/two-party-system-broke-constitution/604213/

^[xxi] Drutman, supra note 20.

^[xxii] Drutman, supra note 20.

^[xxiii] Carroll Doherty, Jocelyn Kiley, Large Share of Voters Plan to Vote a Straight Party Ticket for President, Senate and House, Pew Research Center (October 2020), https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/10/21/large-shares-of-voters-plan-to-vote-a-straight-party-ticket-for-president-senate-and-house/.

^[xxiv] G. Alan Tarr, Bicameralism or Unicameralism, Center for State Constitutional Studies, Rutgers University (April 2010),  https://statecon.camden.rutgers.edu/sites/statecon/files/publications/bicameralism.pdf

^[xxv] Markku Laakso, Electoral Justice as a Criterion for Different Systems of Proportional Representation, Scandinavian Political Studies (September 1980), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9477.1980.tb00248.x

^[xxvi] R. Kent Weaver, Are Parliamentary Systems Better?, The Brookings Review (Summer 1985), https://www.jstor.org/stable/20079894?seq=1

^[xxvii] B. K. Nehru, Western Democracy and the Third World, Third World Quarterly, vol. 1, no. 2, 1979, pp. 53–70. www.jstor.org/stable/3990333.