Annotated Bibliography:

The presidential system strikes a good balance between empowering and constraining the

political executive

Carey, J. 2005. 'Presidential versus parliamentary government'. In C. Menard and M.

Shirley (Eds.), Handbook of new institutional economics. Springer US, pp. 91-122.

The handbook discusses about the difference that exists between the presidential system and the

parliamentary system of governance. It discusses about the gains that are got out of a particular

type of government. The important powers that are rendered upon the president are got when

one is able to win the majority votes. Therefore the president is seen as the peoples

representative across a given jurisdiction. The powers are always used to means good for the

citizens. The president is seen as one who connects between the citizens and the political

executives unlike in the parliamentary systems where different individuals from different regions

of a given jurisdiction are elected to represent people. The pure presidential system, the power

rests with the president who selects his cabinet to work directly under him. The president is said

to be the one who is accountable for actions that are undertaken for those who are under him.

This is makes him to work better as he will be the one who is always responsible for the different

decisions that are taken by the government. According to the author, the president will always be

a representative of people and all the powers will be rested on him in a bid of ensuring that their

interests are well presented. In looking into the article we understand what the parliamentary and

presidential systems entail and the role of the president will be understood better.
Larry Jay Diamond, Jonathan Hartlyn, Juan Linz, and Seymour Martin, 1999.

Democracy in Developing Countries: Latin America, 2nd. Ed, Boulder, pp, 20.

The article looks at how democracies have grown over time in different countries. It shows the

connection that has been there when a country makes good gains in the democratic field. The

political leadership that is elected by the majority of the citizens play an important role of

ensuring that the interests of all are catered for in their leadership. For example in countries that

have impressed democracy always the president will play an important role in ensuring that the

balance between the political class and the citizens is checked. The decisions should people

centered as it will always the decisions that are taken by the executives do not go against the

wish of the majority. He further discusses of the how the jurisdiction of governments in the

developing countries faces challenges as they lack well constituted roles of the president and the

rest of the individuals who work under him. Under the process of lack of clear jurisdiction, the

presidency which is the highest office in these countries remains a challenge to the citizens

which is the exact opposite of what the expectations are. He concludes by suggesting it is best

that a government should adopt a pure presidential system as the citizens will always have

somebody who they will ask for accountability. The article will make us understand the

jurisdictions governments entail and the role of those in powers.

Scott Mainwaring and Matthew S. Shugart, 1997. Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin

America. Cambridge, pp. 115.

The article looks into the importance that the president has in ensuring that the democracy of

various parts in the United States are consolidated. The article analyses nine states in a bid to

ensure that enough evidence is collected so that it gives valid answers. The president is the role

model in the modern democracy as he is the one who is elected by the majority of the citizens

hence he represents the voice of many. The article tries to respond to the criticism that is seen in

presidential system at large. It discusses of the power that the president has in empowering and

connecting the ordinary citizens to the political class. He argues of the fact that the presidential

system can be authoritarian if the checks and balances that are put on the presidency are not well

defined. When the presidency is best controlled and accountability rests on the one who has

been elected by the majority, the president will always ensure that what is done within the

leadership is one that is best for the citizens. However, some governments have chosen that they

will opt to have a mixed form of governance which will include parliamentary system for

presentation of the people. Some have argued that the power left for presidents may jeopardize

democracy at some point. However, the author concludes by saying the presidential system is in

the center of ensuring that citizen rights are protected and there voice is heard. The article will

make us understand the role of the president in a democracy.

Fred W. Riggs, 1997. Presidentialism versus Parliamentarism: Implications for

Representativeness and Legitimacy. International Political Science Review. Vol. 18, No. 3,

Contrasting Political Institutions. Institutions politiques contrastes, pp. 253-278.

The journal discussed on what are the implications that a country get in return by adopting a

given system of governance. It was written by Fred who is a political analyst. In the journal he

indicates the reason why some of the presidential systems may fail even in countries that have an

elaborate constitution that cannot be changed in anyway. It seen that leaders will always struggle

to ensure that there is balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens with the

government decisions that are somehow conflicting. In the modern world there is struggle on

how on how to continually ensure that democracy is advanced while maintaining peace and

stability within the government. With the rise of terrorism and other types of crimes that involve

citizens it makes it difficult for those in power to quickly take decisions that are people centered.

However, the president has the sole mandate of taking the decision of ensuring that the balance

of the two is reached and none of the parties will lose. With the fact that in the presidential

system the president is the representative of the people, on the other hand he has executive who

take decisions. He has to ensure that both the interests meant to empower citizens and those of

the executives are also considered. However, in most of the western countries there is a mixed

regime of presidential and parliamentary for representation. He concludes that the mixed

governance system is one of the best ways to solve the dilemma that may be there in cases where

there is conflicting interest as the two will assist the other in taking decisions. This source will

assist us understand the role of both the president and the parliament.
Nelson, Dana D. (2008). Bad for Democracy: How the Presidency Undermines the Power of

the People. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. pp. 248

The journal talks about the reasons why some of the American presidents failed to live up the

expectations that electorates had in them. It discusses different reasons as to why some

presidential regimes may failed though there is a good constitution that supports them while in

office. However, in the journal goes beyond blaming those in leadership as presidents and tries to

shit the whole blame to the office of the presidency that is left in the dilemma of balance between

the constitution and the fundamental decisions of governance that are always conflicting. The

president will always be required to undertake decisions that are meant to ensure that the citizens

are protected. Also, he will always be required to protect the borders of the country. On the

execution of such like undertakings, at some point it will infringe the basic human rights that are

protected by the constitution. Always when the two are conflicting there will be a sign of failure

on the one who is holding the office. The author describes the American president office as a

great American experiment. He say that the results will always not be predictable hence making

the governance always be in difficult. However, he insists that the power and interests of the

people should come forefront since the president the representation of the people. His actions

should always be tilted to the interests of the majority. Though this will also at a point present a

conflict between the constitution and the peoples interests, governance must go on. He

concludes that, the presidential system in America is one that faced with challenges and no one

should be blamed for the actions taken.