South Sudan should try Parliamentary system over the Presidential. South Sudan has been at war for almost 50 years now, before and after the independence of South Sudan from the Khartoum government. One of the reasons to why South Sudan has been at war is that some tribes have dominated every institution of government in South Sudan.

As Dr. Riek Machar mentioned in his Article “SOUTH SUDAN: A HISTORY OF POLITICAL DOMINATION - A CASE OF SELF-DETERMINATION.” He mentioned that “The people of South Sudan have been denied this right by the different regimes that ruled Sudan since its constitution as a state.” However, it is now “imperative that peace shall prevail only when the people of South Sudan have acceded their inalienable right to self-determination.” Now, if that has been the issue why not try something that will help stop us from fighting and bring something that will make our people exercise their right in any system of the government? Why not try the Parliamentary system of government over the current presidential system that is believed to be more problematic to South Sudanese? What is the Parliamentary system of government and why would it be more beneficial South Sudanese?

The parliamentary system of governance is a system of democratic governance whereby the executive branch, headed by the Prime Minister derives its democratic legitimacy from its ability to command the confidence of the legislative branch, typically a parliament, and is also held accountable to that parliament. In many parliamentary systems, the head of state is usually a different person from the head of the government which is always a ceremonial president. These systems of governance existed and it is being practiced in the United Kingdom, Australia, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, South Korea, France, Philippines, and Uruguay, just to name a few. In the parliamentary form of government, the coalition or political parties with the most quantity of delegates do have the right to form the government. The chancellor or prime minister will then be selected from the delegates most qualified leaders until the next election. Also, in a parliamentary democracy, the authorities are composed of delegates from various events, so it falls to the minority celebration to oppose the general public and task it. This effect within the government is a place that permits for healthful discussions concerning the laws. Given this information, the Parliamentary system will be good for South Sudanese people.

However; there are pros and cons of Parliamentary systems of government that can be evaluated to see if they can be used in South Sudan in the issue of power in the main. It reduces political polarization. Several extraordinary degrees of political polarization may be discovered in humans from either celebration. The trouble with political polarization is that people tend to base their evaluations or stance on troubles or rules on their political affiliation. but a central authority can only be surely useful if everybody on each end of the spectrum consents to paintings collectively for the betterment of the country. With a Parliamentary Democracy, all events are forced to paintings harmoniously together and for the majority organization to be constantly challenged, not seeking to please unique corporations to gain a better governance. It permits for a faster and smooth of transition of governance. A parliamentary system can sometimes make a smooth passage of regulation quicker and it can also assist in the legislative system stepped up. This is due to the fact the government t is elected into office according to the party’s manifesto. As a result, the will of the civilian has extra powers to holds their leaders accountable than any political wills of presidency and his inner circles. It promotes unity of coalition in any legislation passing. In many cases by partisanship needs to be more abandoned whilst a coalition of events. Coalitions must work collectively their regulation and for the interest of their constituency need to be exceeded. Such workability can achieved without any unmarried celebration and for any party to be able to passed any rules without the support of a big majority. This may result in making sure no unique pastimes or minority organizations is more preferred over the opposite. For instant, in the United Kingdom, there is a great instance to why a Parliamentary government is more beneficial to the nation example. It is extra beneficial to a racially, ethnically or ideologically numerous population with the state. Unlike in a presidential shape of the presidency, power is split and even frivolously unfold, making Parliamentary Democracy a little extra suitable to ethnically, racially or ideologically diverse international locations. in this form of democracy, a prime minister does now not have as an awful lot impact or power as a president. This sometimes allow people to opt for a party and no longer demand loyalty to any person to make critical selections or any policy of the presidency over the party’s visions. As, Such parliamentary system enterprise can shape the celebration of diversity of ideas where the coalition can reflects and shared non-public view, and then have it being represented inside the government.

Within the US for example such mechanism, may be hard to gain any traction. As lesson learn in subsections of the two main political parties, like the Tea celebration of the Republican party, discover it has been more challenging to represent such views . In truth, no 1/3 majority has made any sizable impact on a Presidential election has given since 1992. Pros and Cons of Parliamentary System of Democracy. Lack of representation from the ground. Unlike a presidential democracy or other forms of government, individual regions don’t all the times receive the same amount of representation in this form of democracy. This is because when coalitions are formed, it could be a little difficult for politicians to be held responsible for their personal conduct t because they are mostly attach to the party’s goals. Denomination and legislation passing without minority approval. Most of the time, the coalition that gets a majority votes in the house has more power to do whatever they wishes to do. Like passing of any legislation that suited their vision; without consulting or seeking for the approval from of the minority parties. This often happens some countries like in the United Kingdom, Australia, and in Japan. This often happens when the other party gained a complete control or has majority of votes in the parliament, and when the opposition does not have any power challenge the operation mechanism and it does create more imbalanced legislations in passing procedural mechanism . This is because the majority can even ignore them if it does not suit their political interests. Legislature can vote for the head of state or prime minister than the electorate. In a Parliamentary Democracy, an electorate is not required to vote for the head of state or prime minister. This is why this form of government is often and mostly criticized by many Philosophers. However; aside from that, even before the legislature could pick the head of the government, there can be a certain degree of certainty as to who will win because of the party’s campaigns. It is can be unstable. In the Parliamentary system, if the governance is mostly challenged by the minority, unstable coalitions and the like, this form of government could become unstable sometimes. There are proponents contend that political culture, highly polarized votes, and proportional representation can lead to instability in a government. In some situations, the practice of flexible election scheduling in a parliamentary the ruling party can delayed elections, and this could also lead to destabilizing the government.

Even if the Parliamentary system has its set back, it should be known that no governmental system of is better than the other. In fact, parliamentary democracy in the world has proven to have been working better in other country even with its drawbacks. It believe that it can help in the reduction of conflicts in some countries like Kenya after 2007-8 election’s conflict, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Somalia. However more study is needed on this point. If Parliamentary be helpful, why can’t South Sudanese try it out and see if it may work in their country? Research has also proven that any form of government can be a trouble if the intended democratic system fails or refuses to paintings for the human beings. whilst that happens, it would be well worth considering in the situations such the one in South Sudan.

The author is an adviser on International Criminal Law & Human Rights and can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.[1]

The views expressed in ‘opinion’ articles published by Radio Tamazuj are solely those of the writer. The veracity of any claims made are the responsibility of the author, not Radio Tamazuj.

 

References

  1. ^ This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. (www.bing.com)

Source http://www.bing.com/news/apiclick.aspx?ref=FexRss&aid=&tid=CDDEB1E750104304B5A95DD33D41619A&url=https%3A%2F%2Fradiotamazuj.org%2Fen%2Fnews%2Farticle%2Fopinion-why-south-sudan-should-try-parliamentary-system-over-presidential-system&c=3297894071192289734&mkt=en-ca

Please login to comment
  • No comments found