View source for Parliamentary system

{{Short description|Form of government}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=December 2022}}
{{Systems of government}}
{{Politics sidebar|Systems}}

A '''parliamentary system''', or '''parliamentary democracy''', is a form of [[government]] based on the [[fusion of powers]]. In this system the [[head of government]] (chief executive) derives their [[Election|democratic]] legitimacy from their ability to command the support ("confidence") of a majority of the [[parliament]], to which they are held accountable. This [[head of government]] is usually, but not always, distinct from a ceremonial [[head of state]]. This is in contrast to a [[presidential system]], which features a president who is not fully accountable to the legislature, and cannot be replaced by a simple [[Majority Voting|majority]] vote.

[[Countries]] with parliamentary systems may be [[Constitutional monarchy|constitutional monarchies]], where a [[monarch]] is the head of [[State (polity)|state]] while the head of government is almost always a [[member of parliament]], or [[Parliamentary republic|parliamentary republics]], where a mostly ceremonial president is the head of state while the head of government is from the legislature. In a few countries, the head of government is also head of state but is [[Elected king|elected]] by the legislature. In [[Bicameral legislature|bicameral]] parliaments, the head of government is generally, though not always, a member of the [[lower house]].

Parliamentary [[democracy]] is the predominant [[form of government]] in the [[European Union]], [[Oceania]], and throughout the former [[British Empire]], with other users scattered throughout [[Africa]] and [[Asia]]. A similar system, called a [[council–manager government]], is used by many local governments in the United States.

==History==
{{Further|History of parliamentarism}}

The first [[parliament]]s date back to Europe in the Middle Ages. The earliest example of a parliament is disputed, especially depending how the term is defined. 

For example, the Icelandic [[Althing]] consisting of prominent individuals among the free landowners of the various districts of the [[Icelandic Commonwealth]] first gathered around the year 930 (it conducted its business orally, with no written record allowing an exact date).

The first written record of a parliament, in particular in the sense of an assembly separate from the population called in presence of a king was in 1188, when Alfonso IX, King of Leon (Spain) convened the three states in the [[Cortes of León]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.unesco.org/en/memory-world/decreta-leon-1188-oldest-documentary-manifestation-european-parliamentary-system|title=The Decreta of León of 1188 – The oldest documentary manifestation of the European parliamentary system|publisher=UNESCO Memory of the World Programme|access-date=2025-08-15}}</ref><ref>John Keane: ''The Life and Death of Democracy'', London 2009, 169–176.</ref> The [[Catalan Courts|Corts of Catalonia]] were the first parliament of Europe that officially obtained the power to pass legislation, apart from the custom.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Sánchez |first1=Isabel |title=La Diputació del General de Catalunya (1413-1479) |date=2004 |publisher=Institut d'Estudis Catalans |location=Barcelona |isbn=9788472837508 |page=92}}</ref> An early example of parliamentary government also occurred in today's Netherlands and Belgium during the [[Dutch revolt]] (1581), when the sovereign, legislative and executive powers were taken over by the [[States General of the Netherlands]] from the monarch, [[King Philip II of Spain]].{{Citation needed|date=September 2016}} Significant developments [[Kingdom of Great Britain]], in particular in the period 1707 to 1800 and its contemporary, the [[Age of Liberty|Parliamentary System in Sweden between 1721 and 1772]], and later in Europe and elsewhere in the 19th and 20th centuries, with the expansion of like institutions, and beyond

In England, [[Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester|Simon de Montfort]] is remembered as one of the figures relevant later for convening two famous parliaments.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Jobson|first1=Adrian|title=The First English Revolution: Simon de Montfort, Henry III and the Barons' War|date=2012|publisher=Bloomsbury|isbn= 978-1-84725-226-5 |pages=173–4|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9gHWamp-TLoC&pg=PA174|access-date=6 June 2020|archive-date=1 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200801012245/https://books.google.com/books?id=9gHWamp-TLoC&pg=PA174|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Simon de Montfort: The turning point for democracy that gets overlooked |url= https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30849472|access-date=19 January 2015|publisher=BBC|postscript=none|date=19 January 2015|archive-date=19 January 2015|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150119092017/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30849472 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=The January Parliament and how it defined Britain|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11355822/The-January-Parliament-and-how-it-defined-Britain.html|access-date=28 January 2015|newspaper=The Telegraph|date=20 January 2015|archive-date=23 January 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150123010049/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11355822/The-January-Parliament-and-how-it-defined-Britain.html|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Oxford Parliament (1258)|The first]], in 1258, stripped the king of unlimited authority and the second, in 1265, included [[Simon de Montfort's Parliament|ordinary citizens from the towns]].<ref name="dnb">{{cite DNB |last=Norgate |first=Kate |author-link=Kate Norgate |wstitle=Montfort, Simon of (1208?-1265)|volume=38 }}</ref> Later, in the 17th century, the [[Parliament of England]] pioneered some of the ideas and systems of [[Liberal democracy#Origins|liberal democracy]] culminating in the [[Glorious Revolution]] and passage of the [[Bill of Rights 1689]].<ref>{{cite book|editor1-last=Kopstein|editor1-first=Jeffrey|editor2-last=Lichbach|editor2-first=Mark|editor3-last=Hanson|editor3-first=Stephen E.|title=Comparative Politics: Interests, Identities, and Institutions in a Changing Global Order|date=2014|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-1139991384|pages= 37–9|edition=4, revised|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=L2jwAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA38|quote=Britain pioneered the system of liberal democracy that has now spread in one form or another to most of the world's countries|access-date=6 June 2020|archive-date=30 June 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200630231313/https://books.google.com/books?id=L2jwAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA38|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="refIIP">{{cite web|title=Constitutionalism: America & Beyond|url=http://www.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/DOCS/Demopaper/dmpaper2.html |publisher=Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP), U.S. Department of State|access-date=30 October 2014|quote=The earliest, and perhaps greatest, victory for liberalism was achieved in England. The rising commercial class that had supported the Tudor monarchy in the 16th century led the revolutionary battle in the 17th, and succeeded in establishing the supremacy of Parliament and, eventually, of the House of Commons. What emerged as the distinctive feature of modern constitutionalism was not the insistence on the idea that the king is subject to law (although this concept is an essential attribute of all constitutionalism). This notion was already well established in the Middle Ages. What was distinctive was the establishment of effective means of political control whereby the rule of law might be enforced. Modern constitutionalism was born with the political requirement that representative government depended upon the consent of citizen subjects... However, as can be seen through provisions in the 1689 Bill of Rights, the English Revolution was fought not just to protect the rights of property (in the narrow sense) but to establish those liberties which liberals believed essential to human dignity and moral worth. The "rights of man" enumerated in the English Bill of Rights gradually were proclaimed beyond the boundaries of England, notably in the American Declaration of Independence of 1776 and in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789.|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141024130317/http://www.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/DOCS/Demopaper/dmpaper2.html|archive-date=24 October 2014}}</ref>

In the [[Kingdom of Great Britain]], the monarch, in theory, chaired the cabinet and chose ministers. In practice, King [[George I of Great Britain|George I]]'s inability to speak English led to the responsibility for chairing cabinet to go to the leading minister, literally the ''[[Prime minister|prime]]'' or first minister, [[Robert Walpole]]. The gradual democratisation of Parliament with the broadening of the voting franchise increased Parliament's role in controlling government, and in deciding whom the king could ask to form a government. By the 19th century, the [[Great Reform Act 1832]] led to parliamentary dominance, with its choice ''invariably'' deciding who was prime minister and the complexion of the government.<ref>{{cite web|title=The Institution of Prime Minister|url=https://history.blog.gov.uk/2012/01/01/the-institution-of-prime-minister/|publisher=Government of the United Kingdom|website = History of Government Blog|date=1 January 2012|first1= Andrew|last1=  Blick |first2= George|last2= Jones|archive-date=10 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160310152512/https://history.blog.gov.uk/2012/01/01/the-institution-of-prime-minister/ |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Carter|first1=Byrum E.|title=Office of the Prime Minister|date=2015|orig-year=1955|publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=9781400878260|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ez7WCgAAQBAJ|chapter=The Historical Development of the Office of Prime Minister|access-date=6 June 2020|archive-date=19 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200819062756/https://books.google.com/books?id=ez7WCgAAQBAJ|url-status=live}}</ref>

Other countries gradually adopted what came to be called the [[Westminster Model|Westminster system]] of government,<ref>{{cite web |date=2 December 2013 |title=How the Westminster Parliamentary System was exported around the World |url=http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/features/how-the-westminster-parliamentary-system-was-exported-around-the-world |access-date=16 December 2013 |publisher=University of Cambridge}}</ref> with an executive answerable to the lower house of a bicameral parliament, and exercising, in the name of the head of state, powers nominally vested in the head of state – hence the use of phrases such as ''Her Majesty's government'' (in constitutional monarchies) or ''His Excellency's government'' (in [[parliamentary republic]]s).<ref>{{cite book |last1=Seidle |first1=F. Leslie |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=i6je60BF-3sC&pg=PA3 |title=Reforming parliamentary democracy |last2=Docherty |first2=David C. |date=2003 |publisher=McGill-Queen's University Press |isbn=9780773525085 |page=3}}</ref> Such a system became particularly prevalent in older British dominions, many of which had their constitutions enacted by the British parliament; such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the [[Irish Free State]] and the [[Union of South Africa]].<ref>{{cite book |author1=Julian Go |title=Constitutionalism and political reconstruction |date=2007 |publisher=Brill |isbn=978-9004151741 |editor1-last=Arjomand |editor1-first=Saïd Amir |pages=92–94 |chapter=A Globalizing Constitutionalism?, Views from the Postcolony, 1945–2000 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kYmmnYKEvE0C&pg=PA94}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Johnston |first1=Douglas M. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dVuwCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA571 |title=The Historical Foundations of World Order |last2=Reisman |first2=W. Michael |date=2008 |publisher=Martinus Nijhoff Publishers |isbn=978-9047423935 |location=Leiden |page=571}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Fieldhouse |first1=David |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nZHdAZDr-kYC&pg=PR21 |title=Settler Self-Government, 1840–1900: The Development of Representative and Responsible Government |last2=Madden |first2=Frederick |date=1990 |publisher=Greenwood Press |isbn=978-0-313-27326-1 |edition=1. publ. |location=New York |page=xxi}}</ref> Some of these parliaments were reformed from, or were initially developed as distinct from their original British model: the [[Australian Senate]], for instance, has since its inception more closely reflected the [[United States Senate|US Senate]] than the British [[House of Lords]]; whereas since 1950 there is no upper house in New Zealand. Many of these countries such as [[Trinidad and Tobago]] and [[Barbados]] have severed institutional ties to Great Britain by becoming republics with their own ceremonial presidents, but retain the Westminster system of government. The idea of parliamentary accountability and [[responsible government]] spread with these systems.<ref name=":5">{{Cite book |last1=Patapan |first1=Haig |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JTg0ZTM8X4oC |title=Westminster Legacies: Democracy and Responsible Government in Asia and the Pacific |last2=Wanna |first2=John |last3=Weller |first3=Patrick Moray |date=2005 |publisher=UNSW Press |isbn=978-0-86840-848-4 |language=en}}</ref>

[[Democracy]] and [[parliamentarism|parliamentarianism]] became increasingly prevalent in Europe in the years after [[World War I]], partially imposed by the democratic victors,{{how|date=November 2019}} the United States, Great Britain and France, on the defeated countries and their successors, notably [[Weimar Germany|Germany's Weimar Republic]] and the [[First Austrian Republic]]. Nineteenth-century [[urbanisation]], the [[Industrial Revolution]] and [[modernism]] had already made the parliamentarist demands of the [[Classical radicalism|Radicals]] and the emerging movement of [[Social democracy|social democrats]] increasingly impossible to ignore; these forces came to dominate many states that transitioned to parliamentarism, particularly in the [[French Third Republic]] where the [[Radical Party (France)|Radical Party]] and its centre-left allies dominated the government for several decades. However, the rise of [[Fascism]] in the 1930s put an end to parliamentary democracy in Italy and Germany, among others.

After the [[Second World War]], the defeated [[Axis powers|fascist Axis powers]] were occupied by the victorious [[Allies of World War II|Allies]]. In those countries occupied by the Allied democracies (the [[United States]], [[United Kingdom]], and [[France]]) parliamentary constitutions were implemented, resulting in the [[Constitution of Italy|parliamentary constitutions of Italy]] and [[Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany|West Germany]] (now all of Germany) and the 1947 [[Constitution of Japan]]. The experiences of the war in the occupied nations where the legitimate democratic governments were allowed to return strengthened the public commitment to parliamentary principles; in [[Denmark]], a new constitution was written in 1953, while a long and acrimonious debate in Norway resulted in no changes being made to that country's [[Constitution of Norway|strongly entrenched democratic constitution]].

==Characteristics==
{{Further|Parliamentary procedure}}
A parliamentary system may be either [[bicameralism|bicameral]], with two [[chambers of parliament]] (or houses) or [[unicameralism|unicameral]], with just one parliamentary chamber. A bicameral parliament usually consists of a directly elected [[lower house]] with the power to determine the executive government, and an [[upper house]] which may be appointed or elected through a different mechanism from the lower house.

A 2019 peer-reviewed [[Meta-analysis|meta-analysis]] based on 1,037 regressions in 46 studies finds that presidential systems generally seem to favor revenue cuts, while parliamentary systems would rely more on fiscal expansion characterized by a higher level of spending before an election.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cazals|first1=A.  |last2=Mandon |first2=P. |year=2019 |title=Political Budget Cycles: Manipulation by Leaders versus Manipulation by Researchers? Evidence from a Meta-Regression Analysis. |journal=[[Journal of Economic Surveys]] |volume=33 |issue=1 |pages=274–308 |doi=10.1111/joes.12263  |s2cid=158322229 |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/joes.12263|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

===Types===
Scholars of democracy such as [[Arend Lijphart]] distinguish two types of parliamentary democracies: the Westminster and Consensus systems.<ref>{{cite book| last=Lijphart |first=Arend |year=1999 |title=Patterns of democracy |location=New Haven |publisher=Yale University Press}}</ref>

====Westminster system====
[[File:Houses.of.parliament.overall.arp.jpg|thumb|right|upright=0.9|The [[Palace of Westminster]] in [[London]], United Kingdom. The [[Westminster system]] originates from the [[Parliament of the United Kingdom|British Houses of Parliament]].]]

* The [[Westminster system]] is usually found in the [[Commonwealth of Nations]] and countries which were influenced by the British political tradition.<ref>{{cite book|editor1-last=Arjomand|editor1-first=Saïd Amir|title=Constitutionalism and political reconstruction|date=2007|publisher=Brill|isbn=978-9004151741|pages=92–94|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kYmmnYKEvE0C&pg=PA94|author1=Julian Go|chapter=A Globalizing Constitutionalism?, Views from the Postcolony, 1945–2000|access-date=6 June 2020|archive-date=1 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200801015306/https://books.google.com/books?id=kYmmnYKEvE0C&lpg=PA93&pg=PA94|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=How the Westminster Parliamentary System was exported around the World|url=http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/features/how-the-westminster-parliamentary-system-was-exported-around-the-world|publisher=University of Cambridge|access-date=16 December 2013|date=2 December 2013|archive-date=16 December 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131216190945/http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/features/how-the-westminster-parliamentary-system-was-exported-around-the-world|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Seidle|first1=F. Leslie|last2=Docherty|first2=David C.|title=Reforming parliamentary democracy|date=2003|publisher=McGill-Queen's University Press|isbn=9780773525085|page=3|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=i6je60BF-3sC&pg=PA3|access-date=6 June 2020|archive-date=19 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200819121018/https://books.google.com/books?id=i6je60BF-3sC&pg=PA3|url-status=live}}</ref> These parliaments tend to have a more adversarial style of debate and the [[plenary session]] of parliament is more important than committees. Some parliaments in this model are elected using a [[plurality voting system]] ([[first past the post]]), such as the United Kingdom, Canada, India and Malaysia, while others use some form of [[proportional representation]], such as Ireland and New Zealand. The [[Australian House of Representatives]] is elected using [[instant-runoff voting]], while the [[Australian Senate|Senate]] is elected using proportional representation through [[single transferable vote]]. Regardless of which system is used, the voting systems tend to allow the voter to vote for a named candidate rather than a [[closed list]]. Most Westminster systems employ strict monism, where ministers must be members of parliament simultaneously; while some Westminster systems, such as [[Bangladesh]],<ref>{{Cite web|title=The Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh|url=http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-details-367.html|access-date=2023-02-08|website=bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd|at=Article 56}}</ref> permit the appointment of extra-parliamentary ministers, and others (such as [[Jamaica]]) allow outsiders to be appointed to the ministry through an appointed upper house, although a majority of ministers (which, by necessity, includes the prime minister) must come from within (the lower house of) the parliament.

====Consensus system====
[[File:Berlin reichstag CP.jpg|thumb|right|upright=0.9|The [[Reichstag Building]] in [[Berlin]], Germany. The Consensus system is used in most Western European countries.]]
* The Western European parliamentary model (e.g., Spain, Germany) tends to have a more consensual debating system and usually has semi-circular debating chambers. Consensus systems have more of a tendency to use [[proportional representation]] with [[open party list]]s than the Westminster Model legislatures. The committees of these parliaments tend to be more important than the [[plenary chamber]]. Most Western European countries do not employ strict monism, and allow extra-parliamentary ministers as a matter of course. The Netherlands, Slovakia and Sweden outright implement the principle of [[dualism (politics)|dualism]] as a form of [[separation of powers]], where Members of Parliament have to resign their place in Parliament upon being appointed (or elected) minister.

===Appointment of the head of government===

Implementations of the parliamentary system can also differ as to how the prime minister and government are appointed and whether the government needs the explicit approval of the parliament, rather than just the absence of its disapproval. While most parliamentary systems such as India require the prime minister and other ministers to be a member of the legislature, in other countries like Canada and the United Kingdom this only exists as a convention, some other countries including Norway, Sweden and the Benelux countries require a sitting member of the legislature to resign such positions upon being appointed to the executive.

* ''' The head of state appoints a prime minister who will likely have majority support in parliament'''. While in the majority of cases prime ministers in the [[Westminster system]] are the leaders of the largest party in parliament, technically the appointment of the prime minister is a prerogative exercised by the head of state (be it the monarch, the governor-general, or the president). This system is used in:
** {{flag|Australia}}
** {{flag|Canada}}
** {{flag|India}}
** {{flag|Jamaica}}
** {{flag|Malaysia}}
** {{flag|New Zealand}}
** {{flag|United Kingdom}}
** {{flag|Denmark}}<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ft.dk/da/folkestyret/regeringen/saadan-dannes-en-regering|title=Sådan dannes en regering / Folketinget|date=29 November 2016 |accessdate=31 July 2024}}</ref>
** {{flag|Portugal}}<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.parlamento.pt/sites/EN|title=The Assembleia da República as a body that exercises sovereign power / Folketinget| accessdate=16 September 2024}}</ref>
* ''' The head of state appoints a prime minister who must gain a vote of confidence within a set time.''' This system is used in:
** {{flag|Italy}}
* ''' The head of state appoints the leader of the political party holding a plurality of seats in parliament as prime minister'''. For example, in Greece, if no party has a majority, the leader of the party with a plurality of seats is given an ''exploratory mandate'' to receive the confidence of the parliament within three days. If said leader fails to obtain the confidence of parliament, then the leader of the ''second''-largest party is given the ''exploratory mandate''. If that fails, then the leader of the ''third''-largest political party is given the ''exploratory mandate'', and so on. This system is used in:
** {{flag|Greece}}
* ''' The head of state ''nominates'' a candidate for prime minister who is then submitted to parliament for approval before appointment.''' Example: Spain, where the King sends a proposal to the [[Congress of Deputies]] for approval. Also, Germany where under the [[Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany|German Basic Law]] (constitution) the [[Bundestag]] votes on a candidate nominated by the federal president. In these cases, parliament can choose another candidate who then would be appointed by the head of state. This system is used in:
** {{flag|Estonia}}
** {{flag|Germany}}
** {{flag|Spain}}
* ''' Parliament ''nominates'' a candidate whom the head of state is constitutionally obliged to appoint as prime minister.''' Example: Japan, where the [[Emperor of Japan|Emperor]] appoints the [[Prime Minister of Japan|Prime Minister]] on the nomination of the [[National Diet]]. Also Ireland, where the [[President of Ireland]] appoints the [[Taoiseach]] on the nomination of [[Dáil Éireann]]. This system is used in:
** {{flag|Ireland}}
** {{flag|Japan}}
** {{flag|Thailand}}
* '''A public officeholder (other than the head of state or their representative) ''nominates'' a candidate, who, if approved by parliament, is appointed as prime minister.''' Example: Under the Swedish [[Instrument of Government (1974)]], the power to appoint someone to form a government has been moved from the monarch to the Speaker of Parliament and the parliament itself. The speaker nominates a candidate, who is then elected to prime minister (''statsminister'') by the parliament if an absolute majority of the members of parliament does not vote against the candidate (i.e. they can be elected even if more members of parliament vote ''No'' than ''Yes).'' This system is used in:
** {{flag|Sweden}}
* '''Direct election by popular vote.''' Example: Israel, 1996–2001, where the prime minister was elected in a general election, with no regard to political affiliation, and whose procedure can also be described as of a [[semi-parliamentary system]].<ref name="Pouvoirs">{{cite magazine |last=Duverger |first=Maurice |author-link=Maurice Duverger |date=September 1996 |title=Les monarchies républicaines |trans-title=The crowned republics |url=http://www.revue-pouvoirs.fr/IMG/pdf/78Pouvoirs_p107-120_monarchies_republicaines.pdf |language=fr |magazine=Pouvoirs, revue française d'études constitutionnelles et politiques |location=Paris |publisher=Éditions du Seuil |issn=0152-0768 |isbn=2-02-030123-7 |issue=78 |pages=107–120 |access-date=10 September 2016 |archive-date=1 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181001151614/https://revue-pouvoirs.fr/IMG/pdf/78Pouvoirs_p107-120_monarchies_republicaines.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref name="Forms">{{cite book |last1=Frosini |first1=Justin Orlando |year=2008 |editor-last=Ferrari |editor-first=Giuseppe Franco |title=Forms of State and Forms of Government |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GFBPlYjuJYsC |publisher=Giuffrè Editore |pages=54–55 |isbn=9788814143885 |access-date=13 November 2016 |via=[[Google Books]] |archive-date=19 August 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200819092351/https://books.google.com/books?id=GFBPlYjuJYsC |url-status=live }}</ref> This system was used in:
** {{flag|Israel}} (1996–2001)

===Power of dissolution and call for election===
Furthermore, there are variations as to what conditions exist (if any) for the government to have the right to dissolve the parliament:
* In some countries, especially those operating under a [[Westminster system]], such as the United Kingdom, Denmark, Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand, the prime minister has the ''de facto'' power to call an election, at will. In Spain, the prime minister is the only person with the ''de jure'' power to call an election, granted by Article 115 of the [[Constitution of Spain|Constitution]].
* In Israel, parliament may vote to dissolve itself in order to call an election, or the prime minister may call a snap election with presidential consent if his government is deadlocked. A non-passage of the budget automatically calls a snap election.
* Other countries only permit an election to be called in the event of a [[vote of no confidence]] against the government, a supermajority vote in favour of an early election or a prolonged deadlock in parliament. These requirements can still be circumvented. For example, in Germany in 2005, [[Gerhard Schröder]] deliberately allowed his government to lose a confidence motion, in order to call an early election.
* In Sweden, the government may call a snap election at will, but the newly elected [[Riksdag]] is only elected to fill out the previous Riksdag's term. The last time this option was used was in [[1958 Swedish general election|1958]].
* In [[Greece]], a general election is called if the [[Hellenic Parliament|Parliament]] fails to elect a new [[President of Greece|head of state]] when his or her term ends. In January 2015, [[2014–2015 Greek presidential election|this constitutional provision was exploited]] by [[Syriza]] to [[January 2015 Greek legislative election|trigger a snap election, win it]] and oust rivals [[New Democracy (Greece)|New Democracy]] from power.
* In Italy the government has no power to call a snap election. A snap election can only be called by the [[President of Italy|head of state]], following a consultation with the presidents of both houses of parliament.
* Norway is unique among parliamentary systems in that the [[Storting]] always serves the whole of its four-year term.
* In Australia, under certain, unique conditions, the [[Prime Minister of Australia|prime minister]] can request the [[Governor-General of Australia|Governor General]] to call for a [[double dissolution]], whereby all rather than only half of the [[Australian Senate|Senate]], is dissolved – in effect electing all of the Parliament simultaneously.

The parliamentary system can be contrasted with a [[presidential system]] which operates under a stricter separation of powers, whereby the executive does not form part of—nor is appointed by—the parliamentary or legislative body. In such a system, parliaments or congresses do not select or dismiss heads of government, and governments cannot request an early dissolution as may be the case for parliaments (although the parliament may still be able to dissolve itself, as in the case of [[Cyprus]]). There also exists the [[semi-presidential system]] that draws on both presidential systems and parliamentary systems by combining a powerful president with an executive responsible to parliament: for example, the [[French Fifth Republic]].

Parliamentarianism may also apply to [[Regional government|regional]] and [[local government]]s. An example is [[Oslo]] which has an executive council (Byråd) as a part of the parliamentary system. The [[Devolution in the United Kingdom|devolved nations of the United Kingdom]] are also parliamentary and which, as with the [[Parliament of the United Kingdom|UK Parliament]], may hold early elections – this has only occurred with regards to the [[Northern Ireland Assembly]] in [[2017 Northern Ireland Assembly election|2017]] and [[Next Northern Ireland Assembly election|2022]].

===Anti-defection law===
{{redirect|Anti-defection law|the law in India|Anti-defection law (India)}}

A few parliamentary democratic nations such as [[Anti-defection law (India)|India]], Pakistan and Bangladesh have enacted laws that prohibit floor crossing or switching parties after the election. Under these laws, elected representatives will lose their seat in the parliament if they go against their party in votes.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://prsindia.org/uploads/media/Note%20on%20Anti-Defection.pdf |title=The Anti-Defection Law – Intent and Impact Background Note for the Conference on Effective Legislatures |access-date=16 December 2019 |archive-date=19 August 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190819113945/http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Note%20on%20Anti-Defection.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1937/Anti-defection-law-the-challenges.html|title=Anti-defection law the challenges|website=legalservicesindia.com|access-date=16 December 2019|archive-date=2 December 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191202021958/http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1937/Anti-defection-law-the-challenges.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|url=http://nujslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/kartik-khanna-and-dhvani-shah.pdf|title=ANTI-DEFECTION LAW: A DEATH KNELL FOR PARLIAMENTARY DISSENT?|journal=NUJS Law Review|date=Mar 2012|access-date=15 May 2016|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160528062743/http://nujslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/kartik-khanna-and-dhvani-shah.pdf|archive-date=28 May 2016}}</ref>

In the UK parliament, a member is free to cross over to a different party. In Canada and Australia, there are no restraints on legislators switching sides.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://barandbench.com/anti-defection-laws-in-india-its-flaws-and-its-falls/|title=[Columns] Anti-Defection Laws in India: Its flaws and its falls|date=1 August 2019}}</ref> In New Zealand, [[Waka-jumping#Legislation|waka-jumping legislation]] provides that MPs who switch parties or are expelled from their party may be expelled from Parliament at the request of their former party's leader.

=== Parliamentary sovereignty ===
{{Further|Parliamentary sovereignty}}
A few parliamentary democracies such as the [[United Kingdom]] and [[New Zealand]] have weak or non-existent checks on the legislative power of their Parliaments,<ref>{{Cite web |date=27 October 2022 |title=UK Parliament glossary |url=https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/parliamentary-sovereignty/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220928161907/https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/parliamentary-sovereignty/ |archive-date=28 September 2022 |access-date=27 October 2022 |website=UK Parliament}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=20 January 2016 |title=Our system of government |url=https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-works/our-system-of-government/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221017113130/https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-works/our-system-of-government/ |archive-date=17 October 2022 |access-date=27 October 2022 |publisher=New Zealand Parliament}}</ref> where any newly approved Act shall take precedence over all prior Acts. All laws are equally unentrenched, wherein [[judicial review]] may not outright annul nor amend them, as frequently occurs in other parliamentary systems like [[Constitutional review in Germany|Germany]]. Whilst the head of state for both nations ([[Monarchy of the United Kingdom|Monarch]], and or [[Governor-General of New Zealand|Governor General]]) has the de jure power to withhold [[Royal assent|assent]] to any bill passed by their Parliament, this check has not been exercised in Britain since the [[Scottish Militia Bill|1708 Scottish Militia Bill]].

Whilst both the UK and New Zealand have some Acts or parliamentary rules establishing [[Supermajority|supermajorities]] or additional legislative procedures for certain legislation, such as previously with the [[Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011]] (FTPA), these can be bypassed through the enactment of another that amends or ignores these supermajorities away, such as with the [[Early Parliamentary General Election Act 2019]] – bypassing the 2/3rd supermajority required for an early dissolution under the FTPA<ref>{{Cite web |date=26 November 2021 |title=Fixed-term Parliament Act 2011 |url=https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06111/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221021190612/https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06111/ |archive-date=21 October 2022 |access-date=27 October 2022 |website=UK Parliament}}</ref> -, which enabled the early dissolution for the [[2019 United Kingdom general election|2019 general election]].

=== Metrics ===
Parliamentarism metrics allow a quantitative comparison of the strength of parliamentary systems for individual countries. One parliamentarism metric is the Parliamentary Powers Index.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Fish|first1=M. Steven|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/handbook-of-national-legislatures/E069CD547EBAA4FE7D241E115C18664E|title=The Handbook of National Legislatures: A Global Survey|last2=Kroenig|first2=Matthew|date=2009|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-51466-8|location=Cambridge|doi=10.1017/cbo9780511575655}}</ref>

==Advantages==

=== Electoral Systems and Political Representation ===

Before addressing the main points, it is important to begin by explaining the voting system.
One of the first advantages of the British parliamentary system (which is the historic model of parliamentary systems) but directly illustrating the Westminster model is that the Prime Minister is the leader of the party that won the general election.
As a result, the electoral majority produced at the polls becomes a parliamentary majority, which in turn provides political support for the government.
This creates an organic fusion between Parliament and the executive, giving the Prime Minister strong democratic legitimacy and enabling greater efficiency in the implementation of policies.
More broadly speaking, electoral systems in parliamentary regimes are proportional representation, mixed systems or majoritarian systems (like in the U.K). It offers a stronger political representation because governments emerge from parliament, citizens often feel their vote has a direct influence on who governs.
PR systems in particular allow smaller parties and diverse viewpoints to be represented, promoting pluralism and inclusiveness.
This system also encourages the formation of coalitions government which therefor fosters compromise, cooperations and leads to more consensus-based policies according to Giovanni Sartori <ref>{{cite book|author=Sartori, Giovanni |date=1976 |location=Cambridge |publisher=Cambridge University Press |title=Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis}}<!-- auto-translated from French by Module:CS1 translator --></ref>
in Parties and Party Systems (1976).
Since the executive comes from the legislature, policy coordination tends to be more efficient, with fewer institutional blockages. 
According to Hanna Pitkin in The Concept of Representation (1967) <ref>{{cite book|author=Pitkin, Hanna F. |date=1967 |location=Berkeley |publisher=University of California Press |title=The Concept of Representation}}<!-- auto-translated from French by Module:CS1 translator --></ref>
, proportional electoral systems enhance the substantive dimension of representation by including a wider range of voices in parliament.
Parliamentary systems, by linking the executive to parliament, strengthen responsibility and visibility of government action according to Bernard Manin <ref>{{cite book|author=Manin, Bernard |date=1995 |location=Cambridge |publisher=Cambridge University Press |title=The Principles of Representative Government}}<!-- auto-translated from French by Module:CS1 translator --></ref> in The Principles of Representative Government (1995)

=== Adaptability ===
Parliamentary systems like that found in the United Kingdom are widely considered to be more flexible, allowing a rapid change in legislation and policy as long as there is a stable majority or coalition in parliament, allowing the government to have 'few legal limits on what it can do'<ref name = 0745-1253>{{Cite journal|last=Weaver|first=R. Kent|date=1985|title=Are Parliamentary Systems Better?|journal=The Brookings Review|volume=3|issue=4|pages=16–25|doi=10.2307/20079894|issn=0745-1253|jstor=20079894}}</ref> When combined with [[first-past-the-post voting]], this system produces the classic "Westminster model" with the twin virtues of strong but responsive party government.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Norris|first=Pippa|s2cid=144867316|date=1995 |title= The Politics of Electoral Reform in Britain|journal= International Political Science Review|volume=16|issue=1|pages=65–78 |issn= 0192-5121 |jstor=1601169|doi=10.1177/019251219501600105}}</ref> This electoral system providing a strong majority in the House of Commons, paired with the [[Fusion of powers|fused power system]] results in a particularly powerful government able to provide change and 'innovate'.<ref name = 0745-1253/>

Although some may argue that the historic Westminster model has faced serious
challenges in recent years, particularly during the Brexit crisis, and that it no longer
represents a model of adaptability, one could just as well claim that this very turbulence
reflects a healthy democracy at work.
As highlighted by Gulcin Ozkan and Richard McManus, <ref>{{Article |auteur=Eichengreen, Barry |titre=Parliamentary systems do better economically than presidential ones |périodique=Global Policy Journal |date=12 février 2019 |url=https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/12/02/2019/parliamentary-systems-do-better-economically-presidential-ones |consulté le=6 novembre 2025}}</ref> the political deadlock that
characterised the UK during the Brexit debates can be seen as a sign of democratic vitality,
with the system of checks and balances functioning as intended.
While one might criticise the lack of clear political leadership or bipartisan consensus,
Parliament was fulfilling its holding the government to account.
This process can certainly create instability, but that is the price to pay, the other side of the
coin, for a functioning democracy.
In short, this helps to nuance the view that the Westminster model is failing; rather, it shows
that it continues to operate according to its core democratic principles.

=== Economic Stability ===

Another important point to mention, is the way parliamentary systems foster more inclusive institutions contributing to better economic performance and stability compared to the presidential systems. <ref>{{cite book|author=Gerring, John; Thacker, Strom C.; Moreno, Carola |date=2012 |publisher=Boston University, Department of Political Science / International Relations / Economics |title=Are Parliamentary Systems Better?}}<!-- auto-translated from French by Module:CS1 translator --></ref>

Indeed, in presidential systems, the concentration of power in a single executive participates to political volatility disrupting economic planning and implementation. 
One very strong indicator is the GPD growth rate. A study <ref>{{Article |auteur=Australian Institute of International Affairs |titre=Why parliamentary systems are better for the economy than presidential ones |périodique=Australian Outlook |éditeur=Australian Institute of International Affairs |date=s.d. |url=https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/why-parliamentary-systems-are-better-for-the-economy-than-presidential-ones/ |consulté le=9 novembre 2025}}</ref>
carried out by the Australian Institute for International Affairs in August 2024 found out that countries with presidential system experience, on average, growth rates between 0.6 to 1.2 percentage points lower than those of parliamentary systems. In other words, for every dollar earned in a presidential country, $4.39 was earned in a parliamentary one. 
Additionally, inflation rates tends to be higher in presidential systems. 
Income inequality is also a greater issue in presidential systems where the concentration of power leads to policies favouring the elite. The study found that income inequality is between 16% and 20% percent worse in presidential countries. 
Further evidence comes from a study by Gulch Ozkan, <ref>{{Article |auteur=Eichengreen, Barry |titre=Parliamentary systems do better economically than presidential ones |périodique=Global Policy Journal |date=12 février 2019 |url=https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/12/02/2019/parliamentary-systems-do-better-economically-presidential-ones |consulté le=6 novembre 2025}}</ref>
professor or economics at the University of York and Richard McManus, senior Lecturer in Economics at the Canterbury Christ Church University also highlights the role of parliamentary systems on economies. Using data from 119 countries between 1950 and 2015, they concluded that, on average, annual output growth is up to 1.2 percentage points higher, inflation is 6 percentage points lower, and income inequality up to 20% lower in countries governed by parliamentary systems.
This represents a significant and meaningful difference in the economic outcomes of the two forms of government.


=== Scrutiny and accountability ===
The United Kingdom's fused power system is often noted to be advantageous with regard to accountability. The centralised government allows for more transparency as to where decisions originate from, this contrasts with the American system with Treasury Secretary [[C. Douglas Dillon]] saying "the president blames Congress, the Congress blames the president, and the public remains confused and disgusted with government in Washington".<ref>{{Cite book|url=http://archive.org/details/constitutionalre00sund_1|title=Constitutional reform and effective government|last=Sundquist|first=James L.|date=1992|publisher=Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution|others=Internet Archive}}</ref> Furthermore, ministers of the U.K. cabinet are subject to weekly Question Periods in which their actions/policies are scrutinised; no such regular check on the government exists in the U.S. system.


Another relevant example that highlights the strong advantages of a parliamentary system, <ref>{{Article |auteur= |titre=Inquiry Commissions in French National Assembly: Tools for Oversight or Political Manipulation? |périodique=France in English |date=10 juin 2025 |url=https://franceinenglish.com/p/inquiry-commissions-in-french-national-assembly-tools-for-oversight-or-political-manipulation/ |consulté le=9 novembre 2025}}</ref>  where parliament holds the government to account, is the example of 2016 reform in France aimed at strengthening parliamentary scrutiny of the executive. Even though France is not a Parliamentary regime but more a semi-presidential system, this example illustrates that many countries tend to adopt certain characteristics of parliamentary governance to get the advantages of it. 
It is both a constitutional function and a political practice. According to Article 24 of the Constitution, “Parliament passes laws, monitors government action, and evaluates public policies.”
The French Parliament exercise non binding oversight through a range of mechanisms that don’t involve questioning the government’s political survival. 
These include : written and oral question to ministers every week; parliamentary resolutions (article 34-1) through which the National Assembly or Senate can express an opinion; committees of inquiry and information mission (article 51-2) which investigate specific policy failures or scandals; Budgetary oversight, ensuring that public spending aligns with governmental priorities, Scrutiny of military operations abroad, introduced by the 2008 constitutional reform:

=== Distribution of power ===
A 2001 [[World Bank]] study found that parliamentary systems are associated with less corruption.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Lederman |first1=Daniel |title=Accountability and Corruption: Political Institutions Matter |series=Policy Research Working Papers |date=November 2001 |publisher=World Bank |page=27 |doi=10.1596/1813-9450-2708 |url=https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1596/1813-9450-2708}}</ref>

A good illustration of all that has been detailed above is probably the report of the World Bank because it encompasses scrutiny and transparency

In the 2001 World Bank Report entitled Accountability and Corruption: Political Institutions Matter (2001) by Daniel Lederman, Norman Loayza & Rodrigo R. Soares
This report is particularly important as it seeks to confirm or challenge the theoretical assumptions outlined above regarding the relationship between different types of government and their corresponding levels of corruption.

This paper is relevant in the sense that it does not just argue that the presence of a parliament is associated with a lower rate of corruption, but it also shows it is the whole structure of the government that matters. 
The key explanatory political-insitutional variables are : whether the country is a democracy, whether its system is parliamentary, measures of political stability, freedom of the press…
The dependent variable is a corruption indicator. The indices used to quantify corruption are numerous. There is the International Country Risk Guide (ICRG) evaluates corruption within the political system primarily as a risk factor for foreign investors. The World Development Report (WDR) considers corruption an obstacle to business activity. The GALLUP index measures the frequency of corrupt practices among public officials. The Global Competitiveness Survey (GCS) provides two indicators: the first (GCS1) assesses the incidence of irregular payments linked to activities such as imports, exports, business licensing, police protection, or loan applications, while the second (GCS2) focuses on irregular payments to officials and the judiciary. 
These indices are highly correlated but the report focuses mostly on the ICRG index because it offers the longest temporal coverage and enable panel data analysis. 
The report founds that democracy and having a parliamentary systems are associated with lower corruption. This is due to the fact that parliamentary systems enhance accountability and reduces rent-seeking : in parliamentary systems, the government is accountable to the legislature, can more easily be removed, parliament oversees budgets and actions — thereby reducing opportunities for corruption. 

This is an empirical evidence showing a statistical association between parliamentary systems and lower corruption levels 

Still this analysis is correlational not definitive about causality. Parliamentarism might correlate with other institutional features like rule of law or civil service quality that drive lower corruption. 

The distribution of legislative power and control is another critical aspect of Parliamentary systems. Indeed, when the power is concentrated in the hands of the President, it can lead to unchecked authority and abuses. The example of Recep Tayyip Erdogan is relevant. He used his presidential power to consolidate its control over the judiciary, media, and other key institutions. 
On the contrary, the presence of check and balances in parliamentary systems limits the power of a single actor and it diminishes corruption. This is what Linz and Stephan found in 1996 showing that in parliamentary systems, there is a stronger monitoring of the executive by the legislature which therefore increase accountability and reduce corruption. 

Another key thing developed in this report is the relation between transparency and accountability and therefor corruption. 
The report based itself on the freedom of press and expression and the degree of centralization in the system. It showed that when there is a good freedom of press, the good as well as the bad actions of the government can be exposed in the press to the public and reduce informational problems (Fackler and Lin, 1995; Rose-Ackerman, 1999; and Djankov et al, 2001)

This assumption is still accurate today. Transparency International’s 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index shows that the least corrupt countries in the world, Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden all have parliamentary systems. Maintaining transparency and accountability is crucial. For instance in Finland and Norway, the civil service is insulated from partisan influence thanks to strict meritocratic recruitment processes and well-defined ethical standards. 


=== Calling of elections ===
In his 1867 book ''[[The English Constitution]]'', [[Walter Bagehot]] praised parliamentary governments for producing serious debates, for allowing for a change in power without an election, and for allowing elections at any time. Bagehot considered [[fixed-term election]]s such as the four-year election rule for [[President of the United States|presidents of the United States]] to be unnatural, as it can potentially allow a president who has disappointed the public with a dismal performance in the second year of his term to continue on until the end of his four-year term. Under a parliamentary system, a prime minister that has lost support in the middle of his term can be easily replaced by his own peers with a more popular alternative, as the Conservative Party in the UK did with successive prime ministers [[David Cameron]], [[Theresa May]], [[Boris Johnson]], [[Liz Truss]], and [[Rishi Sunak]].

Although Bagehot praised parliamentary governments for allowing an election to take place at any time, the lack of a definite election calendar can be abused. Under some systems, such as the British, a ruling party can schedule elections when it believes that it is likely to retain power, and so avoid elections at times of unpopularity. (From 2011, election timing in the UK was partially fixed under the [[Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011]], which was repealed by the [[Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022]].) Thus, by a shrewd timing of elections, in a parliamentary system, a party can extend its rule for longer than is feasible in a presidential system. This problem can be alleviated somewhat by setting fixed dates for parliamentary elections, as is the case in several of Australia's state parliaments. In other systems, such as the Dutch and the Belgian, the ruling party or coalition has some flexibility in determining the election date. Conversely, flexibility in the timing of parliamentary elections can avoid periods of legislative gridlock that can occur in a fixed period presidential system. In any case, voters ultimately have the power to choose whether to vote for the ruling party or someone else.

== Disadvantages<!--'Anti-parliamentarianism' and 'Anti-parliamentarism' redirect here--> ==
===Incomplete separation of power===

As Arturo Fontaine notes, when a single party holds an overwhelming majority in the legislature—usually around two-thirds of the seats—power can become concentrated even under a parliamentary system. Hungary is often cited as an example of this path: once one party gained dominance in parliament, it was able to amend the constitution and reorganize key institutions in ways that weakened democratic checks and balances.

Korean scholarship on comparative politics and constitutional law offers an additional layer to this discussion. Many scholars argue that excessive power concentration cannot be explained simply by whether a country has a presidential or parliamentary system. Instead, it depends on how various institutional factors interact—such as whether the legislature is bicameral, how rigid the constitutional amendment process is, the degree of judicial independence, and the type of electoral system (majoritarian versus proportional representation). They also emphasize how party structure and discipline shape these dynamics. Comparative studies in Korea point out that what matters is not just the formal authority of the parliament, but its actual capacity to exercise power, which depends heavily on the details of institutional design.

Another recurring theme in Korean research is the internal organization of political parties. When parties maintain tight control over candidate selection and legislative behavior, party leaders can accumulate significant policymaking and legislative authority. Without proper institutional checks, this can lead to personal or collective domination within the legislature. Scholars therefore highlight that the internal democracy of parties and their coordination mechanisms with government bodies play a crucial role in determining how power is distributed and exercised.

Finally, Korean studies also warn that similar patterns of power concentration can appear in presidential systems. From this perspective, the risks of concentrated power depend less on the formal type of government and more on broader structural factors—such as authoritarian legacies, electoral competitiveness, and the independence of the judiciary and legislature. Thus, when analyzing separation of powers from a comparative institutional viewpoint, it is essential to move beyond simple typologies and consider both institutional design and the surrounding political context to reach a more accurate understanding and policy response.

=== Legislative flip-flopping ===

The ability for strong parliamentary governments to push legislation through with the ease of fused power systems such as in the United Kingdom, whilst positive in allowing rapid adaptation when necessary e.g. the nationalisation of services during the world wars, in the opinion of some commentators does have its drawbacks. For instance, the flip-flopping of legislation back and forth as the majority in parliament changed between the Conservatives and Labour over the period 1940–1980, contesting over the nationalisation and privatisation of the British Steel Industry resulted in major instability for the British steel sector.<ref name = 0745-1253/>

=== Political fragmentation ===

Some scholars contend that strong party discipline in parliamentary systems can restrict legislators’ freedom to vote or express differing opinions, which in turn suppresses the diversity of viewpoints represented in the legislature. Korean scholars, in particular, have noted that the ways parties handle candidate nominations, internal primaries, and decision-making processes have a major impact on how much autonomy individual legislators can exercise. The tighter the central party’s control over nominations, the more legislators tend to rely on party leadership and align with its policy direction.
Reports from Korean electoral and parliamentary research bodies further observe that closed and highly centralized nomination procedures often weaken local representation. This structure reinforces a “party-centered” form of politics, making it institutionally difficult for minority perspectives and diverse voices to be heard in the legislature. Over time, such mechanisms can also fuel broader political fragmentation, seen in the dispersal of voter bases and periodic realignments of party systems.
At the same time, several studies have found that certain institutional reforms—such as opening up party primaries, strengthening intra-party democracy, and adjusting the share of proportional representation seats—can help legislators better represent local and voter interests, thereby promoting greater political diversity. From this perspective, the notion that “parliamentary systems inherently produce political fragmentation” is overly simplistic. A fuller understanding requires examining how party organization, nomination systems, and electoral design interact to shape political outcomes.

=== Democratic unaccountability ===

In parliamentary systems, the head of government is selected by the parliamentary majority rather than through direct popular vote. As a result, voters often find it harder to hold specific leaders directly accountable for government performance. This indirect relationship can weaken citizens’ capacity to demand responsibility for policy outcomes.
Korean scholars argue that accountability is shaped less by the type of political system than by its institutional design. They commonly distinguish between vertical accountability and horizontal accountability, which refers to oversight among branches of government. In parliamentary settings, coalition politics and intra-party bargaining can blur these lines of responsibility, making it difficult to pinpoint who should answer for policy failures.
Researchers further emphasize that closed candidate selection, opaque party governance, and weak oversight bodies seriously undermine effective accountability. When legislatures, courts, and audit agencies lack independence, citizens’ ability to monitor those in power is diminished. Hence, democratic unaccountability should not be seen as an intrinsic weakness of parliamentarism itself, but rather as a symptom of broader institutional and party-structural deficiencies.

==Countries==
{{main|List of countries by system of government#Parliamentary systems}}

===Africa===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Country !! Connection between the legislature and the executive
|-
| {{flagu|Botswana}} || [[Parliament of Botswana]] elects the [[President of Botswana|President]] who appoints the [[Cabinet of Botswana|Cabinet]]
|-
| {{flagu|Ethiopia}} || [[Federal Parliamentary Assembly]] appoints the [[Council of Ministers (Ethiopia)|Council of Ministers]]
|-
| {{flagu|Lesotho}} || [[National Assembly (Lesotho)|National Assembly of Lesotho]] determines the [[Prime Minister of Lesotho]]
|-
| {{flagu|Mauritius}} || [[National Assembly of Mauritius|National Assembly]] appoints the [[Cabinet of Mauritius]]
|-
| {{flagu|Somalia}} || [[Federal Parliament of Somalia]] elects the [[President of Somalia|President]] who appoints the [[Prime Minister of Somalia|Prime Minister]]
|-
| {{flagu|South Africa}} || [[Parliament of South Africa]] elects the [[President of South Africa|President]] who appoints the [[Cabinet of South Africa|Cabinet]]
|-
| {{flagu|Togo}} ||
[[National Assembly (Togo)|National Assembly]] elects the [[President of Togo|President]] who appoints the [[Prime Minister of Togo|Prime Minister]]
|}

===Americas===
[[File:Belmopan Parliament.jpg|thumb|[[House of Representatives (Belize)|House of Representatives of Belize]]]]
[[File:Centre Block - Parliament Hill.jpg|thumb|[[Parliament of Canada]]]]

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! width=230pt|Country !! Connection between the legislature and the executive
|-
| {{flagu|Antigua and Barbuda}} || Leader of the political party that has the support of a majority in the [[House of Representatives of Antigua and Barbuda]] is appointed [[Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda]] by the [[Governor-General of Antigua and Barbuda]], who then appoints the [[Cabinet of Antigua and Barbuda]] on the advice of the Prime Minister
|-
| {{flagu|The Bahamas}}|| Leader of the political party that has the support of a majority in the [[House of Assembly of the Bahamas]] is appointed [[Prime Minister of the Bahamas]] by the [[Governor-General of the Bahamas]], who then appoints the [[Cabinet of the Bahamas]] on the advice of the Prime Minister
|-
| {{flagu|Barbados}} || Leader of the political party that has the support of a majority in the [[House of Assembly of Barbados]] is appointed [[Prime Minister of Barbados]] by the [[President of Barbados]], who then appoints the [[Cabinet of Barbados]] on the advice of the Prime Minister
|-
| {{flagu|Belize}} || Leader of the political party that has the support of a majority in the [[House of Representatives of Belize]] is appointed [[Prime Minister of Belize]] by the [[Governor-General of Belize]], who then appoints the [[Cabinet of Belize]] on the advice of the Prime Minister
|-
| {{flagu|Canada}} || Leader of the political party that has the support of a majority in the [[House of Commons of Canada]] is appointed [[Prime Minister of Canada]] by the [[Governor General of Canada]], who then appoints the [[Cabinet of Canada]] on the advice of the Prime Minister
|-
| {{flagu|Dominica}} || [[House of Assembly of Dominica|Parliament]] approves the [[Cabinet of Dominica]]
|-
| {{flagu|Grenada}} || Leader of the political party that has the support of a majority in the [[House of Representatives of Grenada]] is appointed [[Prime Minister of Grenada]] by the [[Governor-General of Grenada]], who then appoints the [[Government of Grenada|Cabinet of Grenada]] on the advice of the Prime Minister
|-
| {{flagu|Jamaica}} || Leader of the political party that has the support of a majority in the [[House of Representatives of Jamaica]] is appointed [[Prime Minister of Jamaica]] by the [[Governor-General of Jamaica]], who then appoints the [[Cabinet of Jamaica]] on the advice of the Prime Minister
|-
| {{flagu|Saint Kitts and Nevis}} || Leader of the political party that has the support of a majority in the [[National Assembly of Saint Kitts and Nevis]] is appointed [[Prime Minister of Saint Kitts and Nevis]] by the [[Governor-General of Saint Kitts and Nevis]], who then appoints the [[Government of Saint Kitts and Nevis|Cabinet of Saint Kitts and Nevis]] on the advice of the Prime Minister
|-
| {{flagu|Saint Lucia}} || Leader of the political party that has the support of a majority in the [[House of Assembly of Saint Lucia]] is appointed [[Prime Minister of Saint Lucia]] by the [[Governor-General of Saint Lucia]], who then appoints the [[Government of Saint Lucia|Cabinet of Saint Lucia]] on the advice of the Prime Minister
|-
| {{flagu|Saint Vincent and the Grenadines}} || Leader of the political party that has the support of a majority in the [[House of Assembly of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines]] is appointed [[Prime Minister of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines]] by the [[Governor-General of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines]], who then appoints the [[Government of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines|Cabinet of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines]] on the advice of the Prime Minister
|-
| {{flagu|Suriname}} ||[[National Assembly (Suriname)|National Assembly]] elects the [[President of Suriname|President]], who appoints the [[Government of Suriname|Cabinet of Suriname]]
|-
| {{flagu|Trinidad and Tobago}} || Leader of the political party that has the support of a majority in the [[House of Representatives of Trinidad and Tobago]] is appointed [[Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago]] by the [[President of Trinidad and Tobago]], who then appoints the [[Cabinet of Trinidad and Tobago]] on the advice of the Prime Minister
|-
|}

===Asia===
[[File:National Assembly of Armenia.jpg|right|thumb|[[National Assembly (Armenia)|National Assembly of Armenia]]]]
[[File:National_Assembly_of_Bangladesh_(06).jpg|thumb|[[Jatiya Sangsad Bhaban]], parliament building of Bangladesh]]
[[File:Glimpses of the new Parliament Building, in New Delhi (2).jpg|thumb|[[Sansad Bhavan]], parliament building of India]]
[[File:Baghdad Convention Center.jpg|thumb|[[Council of Representatives of Iraq]]]]
[[File:Knesset Building (South Side).JPG|thumb|[[Knesset]] of Israel in [[Jerusalem]]]] 	
[[File:MalaysianParliament.jpg|thumb|[[Parliament of Malaysia]]]]
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! width=130pt|Country !! Connection between the legislature and the executive
|-
|{{flagu|Armenia}}
|[[National Assembly (Armenia)|National Assembly]] appoints and (no sooner than one year) can dismiss through the [[constructive vote of no confidence]] the [[Government of Armenia]] 
|-
| {{flagu|Bangladesh}} || [[Jatiya Sangsad]] approves the [[Cabinet of Bangladesh]]
|-
| {{flagu|Bhutan}} || [[Parliament of Bhutan]] approves the [[Lhengye Zhungtshog]]
|-
| {{flagu|Cambodia}} || [[Parliament of Cambodia]] approves the [[Council of Ministers (Cambodia)|Council of Ministers]]
|-
| {{flagu|Republic of China|1928}} (Taiwan)||
* 1947 Constitution: The [[Legislative Yuan]] approves the [[Executive Yuan]] in which the premier is nominated and appointed by the president, with the consent of the Legislative Yuan.
* 2005 Amendments: The [[Legislative Yuan]] approves the [[Executive Yuan]] in which the premier is appointed by the president. The Legislative Yuan may vote for motion of no confidence.
|-
| {{flagu|Georgia}} ||The [[Prime Minister of Georgia|Prime Minister]] is nominated by a political party that has secured the best results in the parliamentary election. The nominee must be approved by the [[Parliament of Georgia (country)|Parliament]] and formally by the [[President of Georgia|President]]. The Prime Minister then appoints the [[Government of Georgia (country)|Cabinet of Ministers]].
|-
| {{flagu|India}} ||[[President of India]] appoints the leader of the political party or [[alliance]] that has the support of a majority in the [[Lok Sabha]] as [[Prime Minister of India]], who then forms the [[Union Council of Ministers]]
|-
| {{flagu|Iraq}} || [[Council of Representatives of Iraq|Council of Representatives]] approves the [[Cabinet of Iraq]]
|-
| {{flagu|Israel}} || A member of the [[Knesset]] that has the best chance of forming a coalition is given a mandate to do so by the [[President of Israel]]. On success, they are appointed as the [[Prime Minister of Israel]]. The Prime Minister then appoints the [[Cabinet of Israel]].
|-
| {{flagu|Japan}} || [[National Diet]] nominates the [[Prime Minister of Japan|Prime Minister]] who appoints the [[Cabinet of Japan]]
|-
| {{flagu|Kuwait}} || [[National Assembly (Kuwait)|National Assembly]] approves the Crown Prince who appoints the [[Prime Minister of Kuwait|Prime Minister]] who appoints the [[Cabinet of Kuwait]]
|-
| {{flagu|Laos}} || [[National Assembly (Laos)|National Assembly]] elects the [[President of Laos|President]] who nominates the [[Prime Minister of Laos|Prime Minister]]
|-
| {{flagu|Lebanon}} || Maronite Christian president is elected by the [[Parliament of Lebanon]]. He appoints the Prime Minister (a Sunni Muslim) and the cabinet. The Parliament thereafter approves the [[Cabinet of Lebanon]] through a vote of confidence (a simple majority).
|-
| {{flagu|Malaysia}} || Leader of the political party that has the support of a majority in the [[Dewan Rakyat]] is appointed [[Prime Minister of Malaysia]] by the [[Yang di-Pertuan Agong]], who then appoints the [[Cabinet of Malaysia]] on the advice of the Prime Minister.
|-
| {{flagu|Myanmar}} || [[Assembly of the Union]], by an [[Presidential Electoral College|electoral college]], elects the [[President of Myanmar|President]] who forms the [[Cabinet of Myanmar]]. However, Myanmar is currently under the rule of the [[State Administration Council]], which assumed power by [[2021 Myanmar coup d'état|coup d'état]]
|-
| {{flagu|Nepal}} || [[Parliament of Nepal]] elects the [[Prime Minister of Nepal|Prime Minister]] who, by turn, appoints the [[Cabinet of Nepal]]
|-
| {{flagu|Pakistan}} || [[Parliament of Pakistan]] elects the [[Prime Minister of Pakistan]] who has majority support of members of [[National Assembly of Pakistan]]. [[Cabinet of Pakistan]] is appointed by [[President of Pakistan]] on advice of Prime Minister. 
|-
| {{flagu|Singapore}} || Leader of the political party that has the support of a majority in the [[Parliament of Singapore]] is appointed [[Prime Minister of Singapore]] by the [[President of Singapore]], who then appoints the [[Cabinet of Singapore]] on the advice of the Prime Minister.
|-
| {{flagu|Thailand}} || The [[Monarchy of Thailand|Monarch]] appoints the MP or individual nominated by in the [[House of Representatives (Thailand)|House of Representatives]] (usually the leader of the largest party or coalition) as [[Prime Minister of Thailand|Prime Minister]], who forms the [[Cabinet of Thailand]].
|-
| {{flagu|Vietnam}} || [[National Assembly (Vietnam)|National Assembly]] elects the [[President of Vietnam|President]] and [[Prime Minister of Vietnam|Prime Minister]] who forms the [[Government of Vietnam|Cabinet]].
|-
|}

===Europe===
[[File:Zyrat te parlamentit.jpg|thumb|right|The administrative building of the Albanian Parliament]]
[[File:Congreso de los Diputados (España) 14.jpg|thumb|right|The [[Congress of Deputies]], the lower chamber of Spanish Parliament]]

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Country !! Connection between the legislature and the executive
|-
| {{flagu|Albania}} || The [[President of Albania]] nominates the candidate chosen by the party or coalition which holds a majority in the [[Parliament of Albania]]. The Parliament then approves the [[Council of Ministers (Albania)|Cabinet]]. If the nomination is rejected by the Parliament, another candidate is chosen by the President within 10 days.
|-
| {{flagu|Andorra}} ||
|-
| {{flagu|Austria}} ||
|-
| {{flagu|Belgium}} || [[Belgian Federal Parliament|Federal Parliament]] approves the [[Cabinet of Belgium]]
|-
| {{flagu|Bulgaria}} || [[National Assembly of Bulgaria|National Assembly]] appoints the [[Council of Ministers of Bulgaria]]
|-
| {{flagu|Croatia}} || [[Croatian Parliament]] approves [[Prime Minister of Croatia|President of Government]] and the [[Croatian Government|Cabinet]] nominated by him/her.
|-
| {{flagu|Czech Republic}} || [[President of the Czech Republic]] appoints usually the leader of the largest party or coalition in the [[Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic|Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament]] as Prime Minister, who forms the [[Cabinet of the Czech Republic|Cabinet]]. The Prime Minister must gain a [[vote of confidence]] by the [[Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic|Chamber of Deputies]].
|-
| {{flagu|Denmark}} || The [[Monarchy of Denmark|Monarch]] appoints, based on recommendations from the leaders of the parties in [[Folketinget]], the cabinet leader who is most likely to successfully assemble a [[Cabinet of Denmark|Cabinet]] which will not be disapproved by a majority in [[Folketinget]].
|-
| {{flagu|Estonia}} || [[Riigikogu]] elects the [[Prime Minister of Estonia|Prime Minister]] candidate nominated by the [[President of Estonia|President of the Republic]] (normally this candidate is the leader of the parliamentary coalition of parties). The [[Government of the Republic of Estonia]] is later appointed by the President of the Republic under proposal of the approved Prime Minister candidate. The Riigikogu may remove the Prime Minister and any other member of the government through a motion of no confidence.
|-
| {{flagu|Finland}} || [[Parliament of Finland]] appoints the [[Cabinet of Finland]]
|-
| {{flagu|Germany}} ||[[Bundestag]] elects the [[Chancellor of Germany (Federal Republic)|Federal Chancellor]] (after nomination from the [[President of Germany]]), who forms the [[Cabinet of Germany|Cabinet]]
|-
| {{flagu|Greece}} || [[Hellenic Parliament]] approves the [[Cabinet of Greece]]
|-
| {{flagu|Hungary}} || [[National Assembly of Hungary|National Assembly]] approves the [[Cabinet of Hungary]]
|-
| {{flagu|Iceland}} || The [[President of Iceland]] appoints and discharges the [[Cabinet of Iceland]]. Ministers can not even resign without being discharged by [[Decree|presidential decree]].
|-
| {{flagu|Ireland}} || [[Dáil Éireann]] nominates the [[Taoiseach]], who is then appointed by the [[President of Ireland]]
|-
| {{flagu|Italy}} || [[Italian Parliament]] grants and revokes its confidence in the [[Cabinet of Italy]], appointed by the [[President of Italy]]
|-
| {{flagu|Kosovo}} || [[Assembly of Kosovo]] appoints the [[Government of Kosovo]]
|-
| {{flagu|Latvia}} || [[Saeima]] appoints the [[Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Latvia]]
|-
| {{flagu|Luxembourg}} || [[Chamber of Deputies of Luxembourg|Chamber of Deputies]] appoints the [[Cabinet of Luxembourg]]
|-
| {{flagu|Malta}} || [[House of Representatives of Malta|House of Representatives]] appoints the [[Cabinet of Malta]]
|-
| {{flagu|Moldova}} || [[Parliament of Moldova]] appoints the [[Cabinet of Moldova]]
|-
| {{flagu|Montenegro}} || [[Parliament of Montenegro]] appoints the [[Government of Montenegro]]
|-
| {{flagu|Netherlands}} || [[States General of the Netherlands|Second Chamber of the States-General]] can dismiss the [[Cabinet of the Netherlands]] through a [[motion of no confidence]]
|-
| {{nowrap|{{flagu|North Macedonia}}}} || [[Assembly of North Macedonia|Assembly]] approves the [[Politics of North Macedonia#Executive branch|Government of North Macedonia]]
|-
| {{flagu|Norway}} || The [[Monarchy of Norway|Monarch]] appoints the MP leading the largest party or coalition in [[Stortinget]] as [[Prime Minister of Norway|Prime Minister]], who forms the [[Cabinet of Norway|Cabinet]]
|-
| {{flagu|Poland}} || The [[President of Poland]] appoints the [[Prime Minister of Poland|Prime Minister]] and the [[Cabinet of Poland|Government]], subject to a vote of confidence by the [[Sejm]] within two weeks. If this fails, the Sejm can approve its own candidate with an absolute majority of votes within two weeks.
|-
| {{flagu|Portugal}} ||After the [[Elections in Portugal|elections]] for the [[Assembly of the Republic (Portugal)|Assembly of the Republic]] or the resignation of the previous government, the [[President of Portugal|president]] listens to the parties in the Assembly of the Republic and invites someone to form a government, usually the leader of the biggest party. Then the president swears in the [[Prime Minister of Portugal|prime minister]] and the Government.
|-
| {{flagu|San Marino}} ||
|-
| {{flagu|Serbia}} || [[Parliament of Serbia|National Assembly]] appoints the [[Government of Serbia]]
|-
| {{flagu|Slovakia}} || [[National Council of the Slovak Republic|National Council]] approves the [[Government of Slovakia]]
|-
| {{flagu|Slovenia}} || [[National Assembly (Slovenia)|National Assembly]] appoints the [[Government of Slovenia]]
|-
| {{flagu|Spain}} || [[Congress of Deputies (Spain)|The Congress of Deputies]] elects the [[President of the Government of Spain|President of the Government]], who forms the [[Cabinet of Spain|Cabinet]]
|-
| {{flagu|Sweden}} || The [[Riksdag]] elects the [[Prime Minister of Sweden|Prime Minister]], who in turn appoints the other members of the [[Government of Sweden|Government]]
|-
| {{nowrap|{{flagu|United Kingdom}}}} || The Leader, almost invariably a [[Member of Parliament (United Kingdom)|Member of Parliament]] (MP) and of the political party which commands or is likely to command the confidence of a majority of the [[House of Commons of the United Kingdom|House of Commons]], is appointed [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|Prime Minister]] by the [[Monarchy of the United Kingdom|British sovereign]], who then appoints members of the [[Cabinet of the United Kingdom|Cabinet]] on the nomination and advice of the Prime Minister.
|}

===Oceania===
[[File:Parliament House Canberra Dusk Panorama.jpg|thumb|[[Parliament of Australia]]]]
[[File:Vanuatu Parliament, Port Vila - Flickr - PhillipC.jpg|thumb|[[Parliament of Vanuatu]]]]
[[File:Parlamento da Nova Zelândia.jpg|thumb|[[Parliament of New Zealand]]]]
[[File:Port Moresby parliament building front, by Steve Shattuck.jpg|upright|thumb|[[National Parliament of Papua New Guinea]]]]

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Country !! Connection between the legislature and the executive
|-
| {{flagu|Australia}} || Leader of the political party that has the support of a majority in the [[Australian House of Representatives]] is appointed [[Prime Minister of Australia]] by the [[Governor-General of Australia]], who then appoints the [[Cabinet of Australia]] on the advice of the Prime Minister
|-
| {{flagu|New Zealand}} || Leader of the political party that has the support of a majority in the [[New Zealand House of Representatives]] is appointed [[Prime Minister of New Zealand]] by the [[Governor-General of New Zealand]], who then appoints the [[Cabinet of New Zealand]] on the advice of the Prime Minister
|-
| {{flagu|Papua New Guinea}} || Leader of the political party that has the support of a majority in the [[National Parliament of Papua New Guinea|National Parliament]] is appointed [[Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea]] by the [[Governor-General of Papua New Guinea]], who then appoints the [[Cabinet of Papua New Guinea]] on the advice of the Prime Minister
|-
| {{flagu|Samoa}} || [[Legislative Assembly of Samoa|Legislative Assembly]] appoints the [[Cabinet of Samoa]]
|-
| {{flagu|Vanuatu}} || [[Parliament of Vanuatu]] appoints the [[Cabinet of Vanuatu]]
|-
|}

== See also ==
* [[Law reform]]
* [[List of legislatures by country]]
* [[List of political systems in France]]
* [[Parliament in the Making]]
* [[Parliamentary leader]]
* [[Rule according to higher law]]
* [[Rule of law]]
* [[Parliamentary Monarchy|Parliamentary monarchy]]
* [[Parliamentary republic]]
* [[Strengthened parliamentary system]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

== External links ==
{{wikiquote}}

{{Government}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Parliamentary System}}
[[Category:Parliamentary procedure]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Political terminology]]
[[Category:Types of democracy]]