D@dalos education server - Democracy: Types of democracy

Democracy

"What is democracy?". This is a simple sounding question that proves difficult to answer. Dictionary and encyclopedia definitions (see dictionary) provide a first impression. Difficulties are caused, firstly, by the fact that it is possible to distinguish between two approaches at a very fundamental level, namely between the identity and competition theories (see theory). Secondly, differing forms of democracy have developed during the course of history and it is these forms that we will be addressing here. Another page attempts to explain how democratic systems can be differentiated from totalitarian and authoritarian systems (differentiation) There is also a glossary available that defines the main types in brief. Two illustrations highlight the main differences of the various types:

Illustration 5: Types of democracy

Illustration 6: Comparison between parliamentary and presidential system

Text 1: Parliamentary and presidential systems of government

Text 2: Differing kinds of democracy

[Back to top of page]

Parliamentary and presidential systems of government

The people do not exercise power directly in representative forms of democracy such as the parliamentary and presidential systems of government. Instead, power is transferred to state bodies, which, in turn, perform the acts of state in the name of the people. The British parliament in London is regarded as the home of the most common type of constitutional system - the parliamentary system of government. While most other western European countries have this form of political system, democracy in the United States is based on a presidential system.

When making a comparison between the presidential and parliamentary systems of government, the following formal differences can be noted:

	The American president and the members of Congress are elected during separate elections. In a parliamentary system of government, however, the government and members of parliament are elected in a single election, even when the possibility of differing coalitions exists.
	Parliament elects the government in a parliamentary system; parliament also has the power to vote the government out of office. Under normal circumstances the American Congress does not have the power to remove the president from office. Congress cannot force the president out of office, for instance, because it holds a different opinion or because the ruling majority in Congress has changed. Only if the president commits a criminal offence, can the House of Representatives and Congress force the president out of office following a vote on impeachment and a two-thirds-majority vote respectively.
	This means, however, that the president lacks an important means of keeping discipline in Congress. The president is unable - unlike the British prime minister - to dissolve parliament and order new elections.
	While the British prime minister - in the the classic parliamentary system of government - is also a member of parliament, the American constitution demands incompatibility between government office and parliamentary mandate. The president and the members of his/her government - with the exception of the vice-president, who is also the chairman of Congress - cannot be members of Congress.
	The job of the executive is split in a parliamentary system of government. Representative duties of state are performed by the state president or monarch. The real power of government is reserved for the head of government, that is, the prime minister, chancellor or premier. In the United States, in contrast, the president is both head of state and head of government.
	The president of the United States is formally - but not in constitutional reality - prevented from introducing legislative initiatives. The president is only permitted to veto legislative initiatives from Congress. The president's veto, however, can be overruled with a two-thirds-majority vote in both houses of Congress. In a parliamentary system the government may introduce legislation and sometimes has (...) an absolute right to veto expenditure laws.

[Back to top of page] [Back to overview]

"Mixed systems"

There are a number of western democracies that are difficult to categorize as being parliamentary or presidential systems of government. This makes two further distinctions necessary:

Firstly, there are those systems of government (...) in which the state president plays a far greater role than his/her counterparts in the parliamentary systems. In such systems, which are often referred to as semi-presidential systems, the state president is elected during direct elections; he/she has considerable influence in the forming of the government as well as other important powers. The government, however, is not dependent on the state president alone, but also responsible to parliament, which can also vote it out of office. In addition to the rules written down in the constitution, the structure of the party-political system and the prevailing situation vis-à-vis the majority balance are more important in these semi-presidential systems (...).

Switzerland has a so-called directorial constitution that combines characteristics of the presidential and the parliamentary system of government. Parliament elects the government, but is prevented from voting the government out of office during the legislative period. In return, the government has no power to dissolve parliament. Government office and MP status are incompatible. The government forms a cooperative body. The functions of state president are performed by a member of the government in a fixed cycle. In contrast to the presidential system, the government also has the formal right to initiate laws.

[Back to top of page] [Back to overview]

Despite these differences among the differing systems, which mainly concern the relationship between parliament and government, all the parliaments, with one exception, have similar functions:

	Legislating including approval of the budget;
	Controlling the government;
	Representing the people and taking into account their interests;
	Forming political opinion, meaning actively influencing the opinion of the population by explaining the arguments behind the decisions being taken; and with the exception of parliaments in a presidential system and to a certain extent those in a semi-presidential and directorial constitutions;
	Electing the government and voting it out of office.

[Emil Hübner; taken from: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung: Parlamentarische Demokratie 1, Informationen zur politischen Bildung Nr. 227, 1993]

[Back to top of page] [Back to overview]

Differing kinds of democracy

Democratic systems of government in the present day

A distinction has to be made (...) between the representative (parliamentary and presidential) forms of democracy and those that combine individual elements of both the representative and direct forms of democracy.

Representative democracy

Germany, like the UK, is a representative parliamentary democracy. Its constitution does not (...) contain plebiscite elements (...).

Presidential democracy: United States of America

The US serves as the best example of a presidential democracy. It is characterized by a clear division between parliament and government. The president is head of the executive and is voted into power during elections held separately to those for parliament. The president is not a member of parliament. In the same way as parliament cannot vote the president out of office, so the president cannot dissolve parliament. Only if the president were to commit certain crimes would it be possible for him/her to be removed from office during an impeachment process. Only one US president has been subjected to an impeachment hearing during the 19th century. Richard Nixon resigned from office in 1978 before a hearing was invoked. This clear division between the government and parliament means that the president cannot rely on a constant majority. Majorities are formed in parliament from different sides of the House through negotiation and influence and they come together to pass legislation. A readiness for compromise and the ability to reach agreement between all bodies are essential for this system to work (...).

[Back to top of page] [Back to overview]

Types of direct democracy: Switzerland

Switzerland is often held up as an example of direct democracy. On taking a closer look, however, this claim cannot be maintained; and this despite the fact that direct democracy does play a large role, especially in the form of the canton referendums. The constitution of the Swiss Confederation was written in 1848 (revised in 1874) and recognizes the Federal Assembly as the highest-ranking state body. The Assembly is made up of the National Assembly (lower house) and the Council of States (representatives of the cantons). The Federal Council (Budesrat) - the government - is elected by the Federal Assembly for a four-year term. Its position vis-à-vis the Federal Assembly is not very strong. The Swiss constitution awards the greatest importance to parliament. In constitutional reality, however, and mirroring closely other democratic systems, the government has developed into the most important of the three state powers. Because the Federal Council has no powers to dissolve the Federal Assembly and the Federal Assembly cannot vote the government out of office, the Federal Council, whose members remain in office for an extended period, actually has a strong position in constitutional reality. Control over both parliament and the government is the job of those entitled to vote. The electorate not only chooses its representatives but also decides important issues by means of referenda, an integral part of Swiss government. Constitutional amendments may be initiated by a petition of 50,000 voters and must be ratified by referenda. Federal legislation may also be made subject to referenda. If the representative elements of the Swiss constitution are strong, the plebiscite elements are only slightly weaker (...).

[Back to top of page] [Back to overview]

Unlike Germany's experience with direct democracy between 1918 and 1933 during a period referred to as the Weimar Republic, the elements of direct democracy in the Swiss constitution have proved sustainable. These direct elements in the Swiss constitution have become long-lasting rather than leading to revolution or chaos. The belief that all democratic power is derived from the people - "pouvoir constituant" - has been realized most sharply in Switzerland. The Swiss electorate has more direct political influence and more possibilities open to it for controlling government than any other democracy. Nonetheless, in order for the government and political system to work properly, representative bodies are essential (...).

Both historic and present-day references to all the differing types of democratic systems tells us that whatever the country and whatever the epoch, "democracy" has always been understood and practiced differently. It is, however, important to realize that democracy is neither fixed as an idea nor as a state structure, but is subject to change.

[Hans-Helmuth Knütter, taken from: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung: Demokratie, Informationen zur politischen Bildung Nr. 165, Neudruck 1992]

[Back to top of page]

Subjects: Human Rights I Democracy  I Parties I Examples I Europe I Globalisation I United Nations I Sustainability

Methods:    Teaching Politics    II    Peace Education    II    Methods

This online service on the subject of political education was developed by agora-wissen, the Stuttgart-based Gesellschaft für Wissensvermittlung über neue Medien und politische Bildung (GbR) (Partnership for the Exchange of Information Using New Media and Political Education). Please contact us with your questions or comments. Translation from German into English by twigg's Übersetzung deutsch-englisch.