The division of the English Parliament into separate houses of Lords and Commons in the 14th cent. may have arisen simply for the sake of convenience in transacting business; however, this division came to represent the historic cleavage of interest between nobles and commoners, with the balance of power, especially after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the gradual development of cabinet government in the 18th cent., shifting more and more to the commoners. The powers of the House of Lords were drastically reduced by the Parliament acts of 1911 and 1949, and though the house continues to debate and vote on bills, its function has become essentially advisory.
The British colonies in North America gradually adopted the bicameral system; the upper chamber, whether elective or appointive, came to represent the colony as a whole, while delegates to the lower house were attached to particular constituencies. According to modern scholars, the adoption of the same system for the Congress of the United States reflected colonial practice, British example, and the widespread differences in property qualification for suffrage and office-holding purposes current at the time. In France some 18th-century theorists, such as Montesquieu, favored a bicameral legislature based on the British example, but the "natural rights" philosophers, such as Rousseau, opposed such a system. France experimented with various forms of legislature during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic periods but thereafter, despite numerous constitutional changes, retained a bicameral system. After World War I the unicameral legislative system made headway in Eastern Europe, Latin America, and parts of the British dominions. The only U.S. state to have a unicameral legislature is Nebraska, which adopted it in 1934.
See D. Schaffter, The Bicameral System in Practice (1929); J. A. Corry, Elements of Democratic Government (4th ed. rev. 1964); S. H. Beer, Patterns of Government (3d ed. 1973).
A parliamentary system, also known as parliamentarianism (and parliamentarism in American English), is a system of government in which the executive is dependent on the direct or indirect support of the legislature (often termed the parliament), often expressed through a vote of confidence.
Parliamentary systems are characterized by no clear-cut separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, leading to a different set of checks and balances compared to those found in presidential systems. Parliamentary systems usually have a clear differentiation between the head of government and the head of state, with the head of government being the prime minister or premier, and the head of state often being a figurehead, often either a president (elected either popularly or by the parliament) or by a hereditary monarch (often in a constitutional monarchy).
Though in parliamentary systems the prime minister and cabinet will exercise executive power on a day-to-day basis, constitutional authority will usually belong to the head of state, giving that official codified or uncodified reserve powers. The term parliamentary system does not mean that a country is ruled by different parties in coalition with each other. Such multi-party arrangements are usually the product of an electoral system known as proportional representation. Many parliamentary countries, especially those that use "first past the post" voting, have governments composed of one party. However, parliamentary systems in continental Europe do use proportional representation, and tend to produce election results in which no single party has a majority of seats. Proportional representation in a non-parliamentary system obviously does not have this result.
Parliamentarianism may also be for governance in local governments. An example is the city of Oslo, which has an executive council as a part of the parliamentary system. The council-manager system of municipal government used in some U.S. cities bears many similarities to a parliamentary system.
There also exists a Hybrid Model, the semi-presidential system, drawing on both presidential systems and parliamentary systems, for example the French Fifth Republic. Much of Eastern Europe has adopted this model since the early 1990s.
Implementations of the parliamentary system can also differ on whether the government needs the explicit approval of the parliament to form, rather than just the absence of its disapproval, and under what conditions (if any) the government has the right to dissolve the parliament, like Jamaica and many others.
In addition to quicker legislative action, Parliamentarianism has attractive features for nations that are ethnically, racially, or ideologically divided. In a unipersonal presidential system, all executive power is concentrated in the president. In a parliamentary system, with a collegial executive, power is more divided. In the 1989 Lebanese Taif Agreement, in order to give Muslims greater political power, Lebanon moved from a semi-presidential system with a strong president to a system more structurally similar to a classical parliamentarianism. Iraq similarly disdained a presidential system out of fears that such a system would be equivalent to Shiite domination; Afghanistan's minorities refused to go along with a presidency as strong as the Pashtuns desired.
It can also be argued that power is more evenly spread out in the power structure of parliamentarianism. The premier seldom tends to have as high importance as a ruling president, and there tends to be a higher focus on voting for a party and its political ideas than voting for an actual person.
In The English Constitution, Walter Bagehot praised parliamentarianism for producing serious debates, for allowing the change in power without an election, and for allowing elections at any time. Bagehot considered the four-year election rule of the United States to be unnatural.
There is also a body of scholarship, associated with Juan Linz, Fred Riggs, Bruce Ackerman, and Robert Dahl that claims that parliamentarianism is less prone to authoritarian collapse. These scholars point out that since World War II, two-thirds of Third World countries establishing parliamentary governments successfully made the transition to democracy. By contrast, no Third World presidential system successfully made the transition to democracy without experiencing coups and other constitutional breakdowns. As Bruce Ackerman says of the 30 countries to have experimented with American checks and balances, "All of them, without exception, have succumbed to the nightmare [of breakdown] one time or another, often repeatedly."
A recent World Bank study found that parliamentary systems are associated with lower corruption.
Another major criticism of the parliamentary system lies precisely in its purported advantage: that there is no truly independent body to oppose and veto legislation passed by the parliament, and therefore no substantial check on legislative power. Conversely, because of the lack of inherent separation of powers, some believe that a parliamentary system can place too much power in the executive entity, leading to the feeling that the legislature or judiciary have little scope to administer checks or balances on the executive. However, most parliamentary systems are bicameral, with an upper house designed to check the power of the lower (from which the executive comes).
Although it is possible to have a powerful prime minister, as Britain has, or even a dominant party system, as Japan has, parliamentary systems are also sometimes unstable. Critics point to Israel, Italy, India, the French Fourth Republic, and Weimar Germany as examples of parliamentary systems where unstable coalitions, demanding minority parties, votes of no confidence, and threats of such votes, make or have made effective governance impossible. Defenders of parliamentarianism say that parliamentary instability is the result of proportional representation, political culture, and highly polarised electorates.
Former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi criticized the parliamentary system of Iraq, saying that because of party-based voting "the vast majority of the electorate based their choices on sectarian and ethnic affiliations, not on genuine political platforms.
Although Walter Bagehot praised parliamentarianism for allowing an election to take place at any time, the lack of a definite election calendar can be abused. In some systems, such as the British, a ruling party can schedule elections when it feels that it is likely to do well, and so avoid elections at times of unpopularity. Thus, by wise timing of elections, in a parliamentary system a party can extend its rule for longer than is feasible in a functioning 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.
Alexander Hamilton argued for elections at set intervals as a means of insulating the government from the transient passions of the people, and thereby giving reason the advantage over passion in the accountability of the government to the people.
Critics of parliamentary systems point out that people with significant popular support in the community are prevented from becoming prime minister if they cannot get elected to parliament since there is no option to "run for prime minister" like one can run for president under a presidential system. Additionally, prime ministers may lose their positions solely because they lose their seats in parliament, even though they may still be popular nationally. Supporters of parliamentarianism can respond by saying that as members of parliament, prime ministers are elected firstly to represent their electoral constituents and if they lose their support then consequently they are no longer entitled to be prime minister. In parliamentary systems, the role of the statesman who represents the country as a whole goes to the separate position of head of state, which is generally non-executive and non-partisan. Promising politicians in parliamentary systems likewise are normally preselected for safe seats - ones that are unlikely to be lost at the next election - which allows them to focus instead on their political career.
|Burkina Faso||National Assembly|
|Dominica||House of Assembly|
|Lebanon||Assembly of Deputies|
|Luxembourg||Chamber of Deputies|
|Malta||House of Representatives|
|Mongolia||State Great Khural|
|Papua New Guinea||National Parliament|
|Portugal||Assembly of the Republic|
|Republic of Macedonia||Sobranie - Assembly|
|Saint Kitts and Nevis||National Assembly|
|Saint Vincent and the Grenadines||House of Assembly|
|Turkey||Grand National Assembly|
|Organisation or Country||Parliament||Upper chamber||Lower chamber|
|Australia||Commonwealth Parliament||Senate||House of Representatives|
|Austria||Parliament||Federal Council||National Council|
|Antigua and Barbuda||Parliament||Senate||House of Representatives|
|The Bahamas||Parliament||Senate||House of Assembly|
|Nigeria||National Assembly||Senate||House of Representatives|
|Barbados||Parliament||Senate||House of Assembly|
|Belize||National Assembly||Senate||House of Representatives|
|Belgium||Federal Parliament||Senate||Chamber of Representatives|
|Bhutan||Parliament (Chitshog)||National Council (Gyalyong Tshogde)||National Assembly (Gyalyong Tshogdu)|
|Canada||Federal Parliament||Senate||House of Commons|
|Czech Republic||Parliament||Senate||Chamber of Deputies|
|Ethiopia||Federal Parliamentary Assembly||House of Federation||House of People's Representatives|
|European Union||Council of the European Union||European Parliament|
|Germany||Bundesrat (Federal Council)||Bundestag (Federal Diet)|
|Grenada||Parliament||Senate||House of Representatives|
|India||Parliament (Sansad)||Rajya Sabha (Council of States)||Lok Sabha (House of People)|
|Ireland||Oireachtas||Seanad Éireann||Dáil Éireann|
|Iraq||National Assembly||Council of Union||Council of Representatives|
|Italy||Parliament||Senate of the Republic||Chamber of Deputies|
|Jamaica||Parliament||Senate||House of Representatives|
|Japan||Diet||House of Councillors||House of Representatives|
|Malaysia||Parliament||Dewan Negara (Senate)||Dewan Rakyat (House of Representatives)|
|The Netherlands||States-General||Eerste Kamer||Tweede Kamer|
|Romania||Parliament||Senate||Chamber of Deputies|
|Saint Lucia||Parliament||Senate||House of Assembly|
|Slovenia||Parliament||National Council||National Assembly|
|South Africa||Parliament||National Council of Provinces||National Assembly|
|Spain||Cortes Generales||Senate||Congress of Deputies|
|Switzerland||Federal Assembly||Council of States||National Council|
|Thailand||National Assembly||Senate||House of Representatives|
|Trinidad and Tobago||Parliament||Senate||House of Representatives|
|United Kingdom||Parliament||House of Lords||House of Commons|