Reading Material 3

Atty Reyaine Mendoza-Clavano

FORMS AND STRUCTURES OF GOVERNMENT

The existence of governments is a fact which is universally true to all societies of man. This means that
whenever there is a society there exists at least one form of governance (be it primitive or modern).
Governments exist for it is better equipped to administer for the public welfare than any private individual
or groups of individuals.

THE PRINCIPAL FORMS

Primary governments

Most Scholars believed that it was Aristotle who first systemized the study of governments (which the
term “constitution” was used to refer to “forms of governance”. For this reason, the government he used
in his comparative study is considered the primary forms of governments:

RULER/ INTEREST OF RULING RIGHT CONSTITUTIONS PERVERTED CONSTITUTIONS

Interest of the subjects are Selfish Interest of the Ruler is
prioritized; Ruling is based on prioritized; ruling is based on
virtues to rule wealth; and sheer number
One Kingship Tyranny
Few Aristocracy Oligarchy
Many Polity (the rule of the middle Democracy (rule of the poor/the
class) mob)

The best form of Government according to Aristotle is the Polity, or the rule of the middle class, because:
“Where the middle class is large there is least likely to be factions and dissensions”. The idea behind this
is largely based on his Nichomachean Ethics: The mean of both extremes is good: “Many things are best
in the mean.

Other Important Ideas of Aristotle About Politics and Governance

Citizen and Citizenship

According to Aristotle, he who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of
any State is the citizen of that State; Citizens differ under each form of Constitution (Note: Constitution
here is different from our modern idea of Constitution as the fundamental law of the land, for the Greeks
Constitution simply means the form of government or simply the government)

However, the common business of all citizens is the salvation and preservation of the commonwealth.

Good man and Good citizen

There is a distinction between good man and good citizen, good man is he who posses the moral virtue,
committed to the eternal and unchanging ideals of good and justice, while the good citizen is he who
posses civil virtues, who respects and obeys the law.

1
Hence, a good man is not necessarily a good citizen and vice versa: the good man could be a bad citizen
since he may resist to obey the law of the ruler which he may perceive as contrary to good and justice,
likewise, the good citizen may become a bad man if he obeys the law that is contrary to moral good.

Note therefore that for Aristotle, the virtue of the good man and the good citizen may coincide only if the
ruler is good and a wise man.

Hereditary Government

Monarchy is a government which the supreme and final authority is in the hands of a single person without
regards to the source of his election or the nature and duration of his tenure. There are two (2) general
classification of Monarchy:
a. Absolute monarchy – one in which the rulers rules by divine right. The State is identical with the
ruling individual whose word is law. Thus, the ruler is the law and above the law.

b. Limited Monarchy – one in which the ruler rules in accordance with a Constitution. Thus, the
powers of the ruler are provided by a constitution and are limited by a constitution.(e.g. the
present queen of Great Britain)

Representative Government

Democratic government is a government which the political power is exercised by a majority of the People
(i.e. Citizens). It is a political system which opportunity for participation in decision making is widely shared
by or among all adult citizens (Dahl, 1995).

There are two (2) general classification of Democracy:

a. Direct or Pure Democracy – one in which the will of the state is formulated or Expressed directly
and immediately through the people in a primary assembly. This classification of Democracy could
be exemplified when one considers the Athenian experience of Democracy. Athenians assemble
in public places whenever issues arise and call for their “informed” decisions. (e.g. declaration of
wars, establishment of an economic relations with other city-states, etc.) In his book “The
Apology”, Plato described how the Athenians assembled and decided the fate of Socrates.

b. Representative, Indirect, or Republican Democracy – one in which the will of the State is
formulated or expressed through the body of person chosen by the people to act as their
representatives. The people’s representatives decide in their (people) behalf.

Under representative, Indirect or Republican Democracy, we have to distinguish three major types:
Presidential, Parliamentary and Mixed forms Republican Democracy.

Presidential Form of Republican Democracy

Presidential form of government is usually employed to refer to the American System of government.
According to professor Agcaoili, it refers to a political system which the executive is independent from the
legislature. This system focuses on the separation of powers. The presidential model centralizes both
political power and symbolic authority in one individual, the president. At this point, we have to digress a
little bit further to take into account the notion of Checks and balances. We can appreciate better the
study of the different branches of government if we consider or focus our attention on the Presidential

2
Form of Government. Here, the three branches are clearly divided and their respective powers are clearly
separated.

THE GOVERNMENT
EXECUTIVE LEGISLATIVE JUDICIARY
Vetoes Bills Overrides Vetoes Determines Constitutionality of
laws.
Calls Special Sessions Impeaches and Removes Official Sets up lower Courts
including the President
Enters into treatises Approves or denies Treaties Interprets Laws and treaties
Appoints Judges Impeaches and removes Judges Declares actions of President
and Congress unconstitutional
Fixes number of Justice who sits
on Supreme court.
Approves and rejects
Presidential Appointments.

The notion that centralized power is dangerous, thus power must be distributed and checked, reached
maturity in the eighteenth century, and its first full-scale application was to be found in the Constitutional
Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. There, delegates to the Federal Convention continuously cited “the
celebrated Montesquieu,” John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and other support of the idea that political power,
in order to be safe, had to be divided. The legislature needs to have a check on the executive, the executive
on the legislature, and so on. Many of Johns Locke ideas were adopted and can be found in The Federalist
(especially no.47), among other places, and expressed the philosophy that the executive force had to be
kept separate from the legislative force. For example, the president can veto work of the Congress, and
Congress can refuse to pass the legislative request of the president, but neither can force the other to do
anything.

“A pure presidential regime or system”, or Presidentialism, in a democracy is a system of mutual

independence (Stepan & Skatch, 1993):
1. The legislative power has a fixed electoral mandate that is its own source of legitimacy.
2. The chief executive power has a fixed electoral mandate that is its own source of legitimacy.

Presidentialism has been a popular choice amongst many new democracies in the last decade, especially
in Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America (Mahler, 1995; Lawson, 1992). While the influence of the United
States, the world's best known presidential system, is probably partly responsible for this trend, recent
experience has also highlighted a number of advantages of presidentialism:

A directly elected president is identifiable and accountable to voters to a high degree. The office of the
president can be held directly accountable for decisions taken because, in contrast to parliamentary
systems, the chief executive is directly chosen by popular vote. It is thus easier for the electorate to reward
or retrospectively punish a president (by voting him or her out of office) than is the case with
parliamentary systems (Mahler, 1995; Lawson, 1992; Healey and Tordoff, 1995; Hyden, 1992).

Ability of a president to act as a unifying national figure, standing above the fray of sectarian disputes.
A president enjoying broad public support can represent the nation to itself, becoming a unifying symbol
between rival political groupings. To play this role, however, it is important that the rules used to elect

3
the president are tailored so as to achieve this type of broad support. In a presidential system, there is a
higher degree of choice. The fact that presidential systems typically give voters a dual choice - one vote
for the president and one vote for the legislature - means that voters can be presented with a broader
range of choice under presidential systems than parliamentary ones.

Closely linked to this is the presidential system’s stability of the office and continuity in terms of public
policy. Unlike parliamentary governments, a president and his or her administration normally remains
relatively constant throughout their term, which can give greater stability in office and predictability in
policy-making than some alternatives. This leads, in theory at least, to more efficient and decisive
governance, making it attractive for those cases where governments change frequently because of weak
parties or shifting parliamentary coalitions, or where hard political decisions, such as contentious
economic reforms, need to be taken (Lijphart, 1992).

Now, the problems of this system.

The presidential system has the propensity to be captured by one faction, party or social group. This
can create particular difficulties in multi-ethnic societies, where the president can easily be perceived as
the representative of one group only, with limited interest in the needs or votes of others (Ibid.). This is
what we are dealing with in the difficult and bloody problem concerning the Moro rebellion in Mindanao;
or in Indonesia which lead to the successful independence of East Timor and the on-going rebellion in the
archipelago (Dejillas & Mamaclay, 1995); or in the case of Afghanistan, where a number of relatively
coherent groups are present; and Iraq, which is torn by three large ethic groups.

Other disadvantages include the absence of real checks on the executive. This becomes even truer when
there is a concordance between the president's party and the majority party in congress. In this case
(typified, for many years, by the Philippines and Mexico) the congress has almost no real checks on the
executive and can become more of a glorified debating chamber than a legitimate house of review. This
problem can be exacerbated by the fact that a president, unlike a parliamentary prime minister, can
become virtually inviolable during his or her term of office, with no mechanism for dismissing unpopular
incumbents – except through the difficult process of impeachment (in the Philippines, this difficulty has
already lead to two EDSA revolutions, in 1986 and in 2001).

The presidential system lacks genuine flexibility. While impeachment of the president by the legislature
is a device built into many presidential systems, it remains the case that the presidency is a much less
flexible office than the major alternatives. Salvador Allende's election as president of Chile in 1970, for
example, gave him control of the executive with only 36 per cent of the vote, and in opposition to the
centre and rightdominated legislature (Mahler, 1995). Some analysts have argued that Chile's 1973
military coup can be traced back to the system that placed an unpopular president in a position of
considerable long-term power. In short, the presidential system has contributed to the mergence of
militaristic and undemocratic system.

Parliamentary Form of Republican Democracy

The Parliamentary model is a split-leadership model. “split leadership” or “split executive” means that
there are two Heads or leaders of the political system:
1. The Head of Government (or the leader vested with executive power) is the Prime Minister.
Elected by the members of the parliament themselves.

4
2. The Head of State (or the leader with ceremonial or symbolic powers) can be a monarch or a
president.

Head of State Chief Executive

Monarch Prime Minister
Receive Ambassadors, hosts reception and A full-time politician, Chief Diplomat Chief
perform other ceremonial tasks of Economist, Commander in Chief
government.
The Head of state is the Voice of the People, Chief Legislator and usually, the Chief of the
the symbol or personification of the State Party
prestige

According to Alfred Stepan and Cindy Skatch (1993), “A pure parliamentary system or regime” in
a democracy is a system of mutual dependence: the chief executive power must be supported by
a majority in the legislature and can fall if it receives a vote of no confidence, and the executive
power (normally in conjunction with the head of state) has the capacity to dissolve the legislature
and call for elections.

Advantages in terms of the general context of government accountability

A parliamentary system has the ability to facilitate the inclusion of all groups within the legislature
and the executive. Because cabinets in parliamentary systems are usually drawn from members
of the elected legislature, parliamentary government enables the inclusion of all political
elements represented in the legislature (including minorities) in the executive.

Cabinets comprising a coalition of several different parties are a typical feature of many well-
established parliamentary democracies. In societies deeply divided by ethnic or other cleavages,
this principle of inclusion can be vital (Lijphart, 1992).

Parliamentary systems also have flexibility and capacity to adapt to changing circumstances.
Because governments in most parliamentary systems can change on the floor of the legislature
without recourse to a general election, advocates of parliamentarism point to its flexibility and
capacity to adapt to changing circumstances as a strong benefit. A discredited government can be
dismissed from office by the parliament itself, in contrast to the fixed terms common to
presidential systems.

The parliamentary system is said to foster greater accountability on the part of the government
of the day towards the people's representatives because it promotes "Checks and balances" by
making the executive dependent, at least in theory, upon the confidence of the legislature.
Proponents argue that this means that there is not only greater public control over the policy-
making process, but also greater transparency in the way decisions are made (Mahler, 1995;
Lawson, 1992; Healey and Tordoff, 1995; Hyden, 1992).

However, the parliamentary system is not all together free from any disadvantages.

First, it exhibits a tendency towards ponderous or immobile decision making. The inclusiveness
that typifies coalition governments can easily turn into executive deadlocks caused by the inability
of the various parties to agree upon key issues. This was typified by the "immobilism" that affected

5
Fourth Republic France and that was partly responsible for General de Gaulle's assumption of
presidential power (Mahler, 1995).

The Parliamentary system may also lead to some problems concerning accountability and
discipline. Critics argue that parliamentary systems are inherently less accountable than
presidential ones, as responsibility for decisions is taken by the collective cabinet rather than a
single figure (hence, it is difficult to pin point who’s accountable). This is especially problematic
when diverse coalitions form the executive, as it can be difficult for electors to establish who is
responsible for a particular decision and make a retrospective judgement as to the performance
of the government (Healey and Tordoff, 1995; Hyden, 1992).

It also shows propensity towards weak or fragmented government. Some parliamentary systems
are typified by shifting coalitions of many different political parties, rather than by a strong and
disciplined party system. Under such circumstances, executive government is often weak and
unstable, leading to a lack of continuity and direction in public policy (Ibid.).

COMPARING PRESIDENTIAL AND PARLIAMENTARY POLITICAL SYSTEMS

PRESIDENTIAL PARLIAMENTARY
Mandate Direct Indirect

The President is directly The Prime Minister is directly

responsible to the people responsible not to the
who directly elected him/her people, but to the Parliament
which has selected him/her
Separation of powers High Low

Executive: Veto Legislative: The Executive and Legislative

Impeachment Judiciary: are fused in one body
Judicial Review
Speed and decisiveness Slow High

High incidence of gridlock The executive and legislative

are dependent to one
another
Stability Stable Unstable

Fixed Term Prime Minister could be

dismissed any time e.g. vote
of no confidence
Tendency towards High Low
authoritarianism
Studies show that
presidentialism has fallen
into authoritarianism in
every country it has been

6
 attempted, except the
United States.
Impediments to leadership High Low
change
Impeachment is usually Unpopular leader could be
difficult and protracted; may removed by a vote of no
result to ultra-legal and or confidence, a device which is
extra-constitutional means a "pressure release valve" for
political tension.
Responsibility and Low High
Accountability
It reduces accountability by
allowing the president and
the legislature to shift blame
to each other.

Semi-presidential Form of Republican Democracy

The third executive type is sometimes called "semi-presidentialism". Under this model, a
parliamentary system and a prime minister with some executive powers is combined with a
president, who also has executive powers. The ministry is drawn from and subject to the
confidence of the legislature. This is a relatively unusual model - found today in France, Portugal,
Finland, Sri Lanka and one or two other countries - but nonetheless is sometimes advocated as a
desirable executive formulation for fragile democracies (Mahler, 1995; Lawson, 1992; Healey and
Tordoff, 1995; Hyden, 1992).

The primary advantages of this system lie on its appeal and ability to combine advantages of
presidentialism and parliamentarism: the benefits of a directly elected president with a prime
minister who must command an absolute majority in the legislature. A move to
semipresidentialism has been recommended as a good "half way house" for some countries that
want to combine the benefits of both presidential and parliamentary systems. The semi-
presidential system also satisfies the so-called “mutual consensus requirement”. Proponents of
semipresidentialism focus on the capacity of semi-presidentialism to increase the accountability
and "identifiability" of the executive, while also building in a system of mutual checks and balances
and the need for consensus between the two executive wings of government. This mutual
consensus requirement can be particularly important for divided societies, as it requires a
president to come to an agreement with the legislature on important issues, and thus to be a
force for the "middle ground" rather than the extremes.

However, neither this form or system of government is perfect.

There is, and there remains, the propensity for deadlock between and within the executive arms
of government. Because a government's powers are effectively divided between the prime
minister and the president - for example, foreign affairs powers being the preserve of the
president while the prime minister and the cabinet decides domestic policy - a structural tension
exists within the government as a whole. This can lead to deadlock and immobilism, particularly
if, as occurs relatively often, the prime minister and the president come from opposing political

7
parties. Closely related to this problem is the observation that the benefits of compromise and
moderation can degenerate into a stand-off (Mahler, 1995). This is especially the case when the
division of responsibility between the two offices is not always clear (e.g., foreign policy in the
French system), and where the timing and sequencing of elections between the houses differs
(Ibid.).

STRUCTURES OF GOVERNMENT

This form of government is based on the extent of powers exercised by the central or national
Government:

There are two (2) classifications of this form of governments:

(1.) Unitary Government – one in which the control of national and local affairs is exercised by the
central or national government. Examples: Philippines, France, Japan, etc.
(2.) Federal Government – one in which the power of government are divided between two sets
of organs, one for national affairs, and the other for State affairs. Each organ being supreme
within its own sphere. In the case of the United State of America, individual states (e.g.
Chicago, Los Angeles, etc.) has the right to make their own local laws (e.g. taxation, etc.) but
they cannot possibly conclude treaties with other foreign states, declare war against other
foreign states or recognize other states. These functions are the functions of the federal
government. Examples: Germany, United States of America, Malaysia, etc. In the US, the State
police (LADP, N.Y.D.P, etc.) has no jurisdiction over crimes which are federal or interstate in
nature, in cases like these the Federal Bureau of Investigation will have the jurisdiction.

Federal Structure Unitary Structure

National Gov’t: 10% National Gov’t: 90%
State Government: 90% Local Government: 10%

THE DIVISION OF FUNCTIONS BETWEEN THE NATIONAL & STATE GOVERNMENTS IN A

FEDERAL STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT

According to many observers, federalism improves governance through a new division and
specialization of government functions. There is usually a broad devolution of power,
authority, and the needed revenues and resources from the national government to the
States. Local governments are also closer to the people and have greater impact on their lives.

The Federal Government

The Federal Government shall be responsible only for:
1. National security and defense,
2. Foreign relations,
3. Currency and monetary policy,
4. Citizenship,
5. Civil, political and other human rights,
6. Immigration,

8
 7. Customs, the Supreme Court,
8. The Constitutional Tribunal, and the Court of Appeals, and
9. Other functions of federal governments.

The States
Most other government functions and services that impact directly on the lives of the people
shall be the main responsibility of States or regional governments and their local
governments. These include
1. Peace and justice;
2. Agriculture and fisheries;
3. Energy, environment & natural resources;
4. Trade, industry and tourism;
5. Labor and employment;
6. Public works, transportation and communication;
7. Health and Basic education,
8. Science and technology;
9. Culture (language, culture and the arts);
[Link] welfare and development; and
[Link] safety and police.

OTHER ADVANTAGES OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT

1. A federal republic will bring about peace and unity in ethnic, religious and cultural diversity.
This is especially true in Mindanao where for generations, the Christian settlers have not
found just and lasting peace with Muslim residents. The traditional policy of assimilation and
subordination has failed. On the other hand, responsive federalism will lead to
accommodation within the Republic and discourage secessionism.

2. Federalism will empower state and local leaders and citizens throughout the country. With
policies, programs, and decisions made outside the national capital, local leaders will assume
greater responsibility for leadership and service delivery. People will be more involved and
will demand better performance and accountability. As a consequence, they will be more
willing to pay taxes to finance government programs for their own direct benefit.

3. Federalism will hasten the country’s development. Since planning and policy decision making will
be given to the States, there will be less bureaucratic obstacles to the implementation of
economic programs and projects. There will also be inter-state and regional competition in
attracting domestic and foreign investments and industries. Resources will be better distributed
among the provinces/regions since government revenues will be devolved. States will have more
funds for infrastructure and other economic projects. Federal grants and equalization funding
from the federal government and the more prosperous states will help support the less endowed
and developed regions, and the poor and the needy across the land. This will result in more
equitable development.

4. Federalism will enhance democracy. The citizens will have more opportunities to participate in
state affairs beyond voting.

9
 ON TOTALITARIAN AND DICTATORIAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT

Dictatorship is a political System in which the opportunity to participate in decision making is restricted
to a few. Political scientists coined the term Totalitarianism to refer to Dictatorship’s Modern Version.
Totalitarianism was first experienced in the Stalinist USSR. For our purposes, totalitarian form of
government refers to a political system in which the government absolutely dominates every aspect of
the lives of its people.

Six (6) Distinct qualities of Totalitarianism

(1.)An elaborate ideology that covers each and every phase of an individual’s life.
(2.)A single party (political party) that typically led by an individual.
(3.)Widespread system of terror against external and internal enemy of the regime.
(4.)Total control of the Mass Communication.
(5.)Monopoly over the weaponry and the Armed Forces.
(6.)Control over the direction of the entire Economy

10