Editing Parliamentary system (section)

== Disadvantages<!--'Anti-parliamentarianism' and 'Anti-parliamentarism' redirect here--> ==
===Incomplete separation of power===
{{Undue weight|date=January 2024|section|to=this section by making broad generalisations based solely on one citation, and looking solely at one country's parliamentary system}}

According to [[Arturo Fontaine Talavera|Arturo Fontaine]], parliamentary systems in Europe have yielded very powerful heads of government which is rather what is often criticized about presidential systems. Fontaine compares United Kingdom's [[Margaret Thatcher]] to the United States' [[Ronald Reagan]] noting the former head of government was much more powerful despite governing under a parliamentary system.<ref name=Fontaine2021>{{Cite news|title=Arturo Fontaine: "Si se estableciera el semipresidencialismo, a poco andar el pueblo sentiría que ha sido engañado"|url=https://www.emol.com/noticias/Nacional/2021/11/05/1037461/cronica-constitucional-arturo-fontaine-semipresidencialismo.html|last=Valenzuela Manguini|first=Álvaro|date=2021-11-05|access-date=2021-11-07|work=[[El Mercurio|Emol]]|language=Spanish}}</ref> The rise to power of [[Viktor Orbán]] in Hungary has been claimed to show how parliamentary systems can be subverted.<ref name=Fontaine2021/> The situation in Hungary was according to Fontaine allowed by the deficient separation of powers that characterises parliamentary and semi-presidential systems.<ref name=Fontaine2021/> Once [[2010 Hungarian parliamentary election|Orbán's party got two-thirds]] of the seats in Parliament in a single election, a [[supermajority]] large enough to amend the Hungarian constitution, there was no institution that was able to balance the concentration of power.<ref name=Fontaine2021/> In a presidential system it would require at least two separate elections to create the same effect; the presidential election, and the legislative election, and that the president's party has the legislative supermajority required for constitutional amendments. Safeguards against this situation implementable in both systems include the establishment of an upper house or a requirement for external ratification of constitutional amendments such as a [[referendum]]. Fontaine also notes as a warning example of the flaws of parliamentary systems that if the United States had a parliamentary system, [[Donald Trump]], as head of government, could have dissolved the [[United States Congress]].<ref name=Fontaine2021/>

=== Legislative flip-flopping ===
{{Undue weight|date=January 2024|section|to=by making broad generalisations but citing only one authority}}

The ability for strong parliamentary governments to push legislation through with the ease of fused power systems such as in the United Kingdom, whilst positive in allowing rapid adaptation when necessary e.g. the nationalisation of services during the world wars, in the opinion of some commentators does have its drawbacks. For instance, the flip-flopping of legislation back and forth as the majority in parliament changed between the Conservatives and Labour over the period 1940–1980, contesting over the nationalisation and privatisation of the British Steel Industry resulted in major instability for the British steel sector.<ref name = 0745-1253/>

=== [[Political fragmentation]] ===
{{Undue weight|date=January 2024|section|to=by making broad generalisations but citing only one authority}}

In R. Kent Weaver's book ''Are Parliamentary Systems Better?'', he writes that an advantage of presidential systems is their ability to allow and accommodate more diverse viewpoints. He states that because "legislators are not compelled to vote against their constituents on matters of local concern, parties can serve as organizational and roll-call cuing vehicles without forcing out dissidents".<ref name = 0745-1253/>

=== Democratic unaccountability ===
{{Essay-like|section|date=January 2024}}
{{Original research section|reason=Nothing in the citation supports the statements in this section.|date=January 2024}}

All current parliamentary democracies see the indirect election or appointment of their head of government. As a result, the electorate has limited power to remove or install the person or party wielding the most power. Although [[strategic voting]] may enable the party of the prime minister to be removed or empowered, this can be at the expense of voters first preferences in the many parliamentary systems utilising [[First-past-the-post voting|first past the post]], or having no effect in dislodging those parties who consistently form part of a coalition government, as with then [[Prime Minister of the Netherlands|Dutch prime minister]] [[Mark Rutte]] and his party the [[People's Party for Freedom and Democracy|VVD]]'s 4 terms in office, despite their peak support reaching only [[2012 Dutch general election|26.6% in 2012]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Henley |first=Jon |date=14 December 2021 |title='Teflon' Mark Rutte set for fourth Dutch term after record-breaking talks |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/14/teflon-mark-rutte-fourth-dutch-term-record-breaking-talks-government-coalition |url-access=registration |access-date=27 October 2022}}</ref>