government

I don't think that we should oppose these two forms of governments. There are countries where the president has the most power - like the US, France or Russia. My country Bulgaria is the other case - the president is the commander-in-chief of the army and has other functions, but the main figure is the prime minister. In both cases though the parliament have a most important role in the democratic system.

I am sure the answer is going to be based on who lives under what system. If you live in a country like the USA you will say a Presidential if you live in a country like Great Britain you will say a parliamentary. I know that is not an answer but I have only lived in the USA so I am only familiar with our system so my answer would be biased.

Just to state something These two forms of government are not real democracies as in a real democracy you the people would vote on everything the people where the voice of what happened. very few execpt for the early civilizations had real democracies what we have now as having 300 Million people march into Washington D.C to vote on everything is crazy and non productive is we have Republics. Hence why the United States calls its self a People's Republic. Meaning the people vote people in to represent them in a form of congress. So Parliamentary is very close to how the United States is set up. It has the two houses (Lords and Commons) who vote on the issues representing their people. And you have a prime minister who is basically the President as the Queen has little power in actually doing things as the UK is a Constitutional Monarchy.

Many years ago, I would have answered 'parliamentary', but now I am no longer so sure. The advantage of parliamentary government is that the (usually) prime minister's power rests in Parliament: that is, the prime minister and cabinet stay in place so long as he/she commands a majority in Parliament. If that majority is lost, the Prime Minister and Government falls. I used to prefer this system as I felt the Prime Minister would be more constrained and would have to account to his Parliamentary colleagues. However, for the Parliamentary system to work, it is reliant on MPs to be willing to challenge the government and bring it to account if needs be. If the MPs are craven and if the sole source of patronage and/or advancement comes from the Prime Minister, then this can lead to weak MPs who simply go along with what the Prime Minister wants. This is what I believe happened in the UK under Blair and Brown, with some disastrous results which I won't go into. The Presidential system is different in that the President is elected separately to the Parliament, and his powerbase does not depend on controlling a majority in Parliament (eg, the US President does not fall even if his party loses its majority in the Congress). I have come to now prefer the Presidential system, at least on the US model, because there are clear checks and balances that limit the US President's power. Even more importantly, the sole source of patronage and advancement is NOT dependent on the President: in the US, politicians in congress can of course aspire to become a member of the US government, but they have the alternative of seeking powerful committee chairmanships in the House or Senate, as well as whip, majority/minority leader, etc. This I think is important because it means that they are less likely to simply go along with what the US president wants, but will show independence. This is not to say that the US system is perfect of course. There is a big problem with lobbying and money infecting congress - what doesn't help is having House elections every 2 years which leads to congressmen constantly needing funds to fight an election in 2 years time. Far better if the House elections took place alongside the Presidential election every 4 years, or, if one really wanted to put in checks and balances, run the House election every 4 years during mid-term, though this would make it even harder for the President to 'get things done' than it already is now!