What system of government is ideal?

Some context
For more than a century the Netherlands has had coalition governments, as no single party ever gets an absolute majority of the votes anymore. We've also seen minority governments, where the parties forming the coalition government together do not have a majority of the votes. In order to get anything done a minority government will need support from other parties.

The party with the most votes has traditionally the right to take the initiative in the necessary negotiations to form the government. It's also tradition that they'll provide the Prime Minister.
​

Rise of far right politics and the danger to democracy
Last month's parliamentary elections here in the Netherlands, made the PVV the largest party by far. The PVV is a far right, anti-Islam, anti-EU party. Their campaign slogan was "Nederlanders weer op 1", which translates to something like "The Dutch first again".
Some of the PVV's stated goals go against the rule of law, either our own constitution or international treaties we're bound to. This is a big issue for potential coalition partners, and might make it very hard for the PVV to form a majority coalition.
​

The next US presidential election might put a fascist wannabe dictator in charge of the most powerful nation in the world. With the right* people in all the right* places, he might even be able to circumvent the checks and balances that were put in place to prevent an authoritarian power grab.
​

Systems of government matter
Assuming that Trump wins the election, for argument's sake, I believe that the risk of democracy deteriorating is much bigger in the US than in the Netherlands. A Dutch Prime Minister does not have the same power, nationally, as an American President for instance. Partially because because of the multi-party reality of Dutch politics vs the two-party politics of the US, but also because of the system of government, the Netherlands being a parliamentary constitutional monarchy and the US being a federal presidential constitutional republic.
​

There are of course many more systems of government, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of_government.
​

By what system is your country governed? What are the pros and cons of that system? And what would you say is the ideal system, and why?
​

*: wrong
​

​

PS: a big thank you to Jen for allowing this cheap bastard to create threads for a while

Theoretically, communism. But you know the usual problems with a Communist style of governing, the moment you set one up the United State assassinates your leaders and fills your country with violent right wing militants.

Functionally it’s all too big. Too many people involved and it’s bulky and nothing happens or the power is just distilled into a few key people who are normally puppets for the rich. USA, China, Russia… for seemingly different styles of governments they all wound up with old rich men running the country in a way that the citizens all hate hut can’t seem to change. So I think focusing on smaller communities being self governing is really the ideal setup. It’s essentially how we survived for hundreds of thousands of years. The very recent innovation of large scale governments has been a steady March to our own self destruction since it’s implementation.

Quote by RowanThorn

Theoretically, communism. But you know the usual problems with a Communist style of governing, the moment you set one up the United State assassinates your leaders and fills your country with violent right wing militants.

Functionally it’s all too big. Too many people involved and it’s bulky and nothing happens or the power is just distilled into a few key people who are normally puppets for the rich. USA, China, Russia… for seemingly different styles of governments they all wound up with old rich men running the country in a way that the citizens all hate hut can’t seem to change. So I think focusing on smaller communities being self governing is really the ideal setup. It’s essentially how we survived for hundreds of thousands of years. The very recent innovation of large scale governments has been a steady March to our own self destruction since it’s implementation.

Communism, socialism and capitalism are philosophical, social and economic ideologies, and interesting subjects for another thread. But this thread is about the system of government. See the poll and the earlier linked Wikipedia article for reference.

Quote by noll

Some context
For more than a century the Netherlands--

I stopped there. Just can't take these people seriously.

Quote by Magical_felix

I stopped there. Just can't take these people seriously.

Using 'daddy' in a sexual context is indeed silly. Looking it up in a foreign language even more so.

As I mentioned in my OP the Netherlands is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy. I would prefer it to be a parliamentary republic though.

I'm not a fan of the monarchy, even though it's mostly ceremonial these days. I just think that hereditary heads of state have no place in this day and age.

I do prefer a parliamentary system over a presidential one, as it puts less power in the hands of a single person. The head of state could perhaps be a mostly ceremonial President though.

I also prefer our Consensus parliamentary system over the Westminster one, as I believe it to be less polarising. And dualism, where Ministers are not Members of Parliament, over monism, where they are, as it provides a stricter separation of power and responsibilities IMO.

A constitutional republic makes the most sense to me if we are talking about reality. Anything with a monarchy gives me hives.

Edited to add: it's the electoral system that makes most of a difference really.

Parliament is certainly the most entertaining form of government. Canadian parliament can get pretty hilarious with members of all the parties demanding everyone apologize to everyone else. And not so much in Canada but other parliamentary nations you can get full-on government brawls in the house of commons.

The ideal, of course, is anarchy, where people organize themselves and have no need for leaders... Ideal, but not at all realistic.

I lean to parliamentary republic but Canada's current parliamentary constitutional monarchy is something I can live with. After seeing the mess South of the border in recent years, I think a parliamentary system of either stripe may actually have better checks and balances than their system, which is supposed to have them built in. Being multiparty helps, too.

A republic with more than two major parties. But also has national referendum elections on as many issues as possible.

Or, if a small country, a true democracy.

Quote by Buz
Or, if a small country, a true democracy.

Read up on your Athenian history before you get too thrilled with that idea. True democracies all too often end up dominated by either demogogues or tyrannical majorities. And are, I suspect, less likely than a representative democracy to accept limits on their power like human rights codes.

"What do you mean I have to hire those people? I'll just propose a law that says I don't have to next assembly."

Quote by Just_A_Guy_You_Know

The ideal, of course, is anarchy, where people organize themselves and have no need for leaders... Ideal, but not at all realistic.

Pretty much. I believe that no matter what the system is. The people in the government will eventually become corrupt, bribed and in the pocket of special interests or just greedy and out for themselves. I feel no system really works 100% because people who seek those positions are bad people. Any system could work, even a dictatorship IF the people wanting that position is are good honest people but that’s never the case.

The problem with voting is that too many people are super dumb. Look how many folk still want Trump to be president/dictator with a passion. He’s probably going to get more votes than he did last time.

Quote by Just_A_Guy_You_Know
The ideal, of course, is anarchy, where people organize themselves and have no need for leaders... Ideal, but not at all realistic.

Yeah, anarchy was fine for nomadic hunter-gatherers in the prehistoric era but eventually, as larger groups developed, the need for organization developed. And with a large enough group, I really think that some kind of leadership structure inevitably develops even in a technical anarchy. Without formalizing that leadership structure, there would actually be less constraints on those leaders' power than in a constitutional government.

Also, having a functional anarchy assumes all members of the society have the same goals, aspirations, etc. Absent that, anarchy can quickly turn into tyranny of the majority, just as badly done democracy can. And with no governance structure, there's no way to rein in attacks on minorities, either.

A constitutional multi-party republic, with a very progressive constitution, with strong checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and strict prohibitions against money in politics.

Quote by PrincessC

Edited to add: it's the electoral system that makes most of a difference really.

I think electoral systems deserve a thread of their own.

Quote by PrincessC

A constitutional republic makes the most sense to me if we are talking about reality.

Quote by Beffer

A constitutional multi-party republic,

But with a parliamentary or a presidential system?

Quote by noll

But with a parliamentary or a presidential system?

Beffer mentions separate executive and legislative branches which would mandate a presidential system like the USA and France. Parliamentary systems, at least the UK-based ones I am familiar with, draw the PM and cabinet from parliament so there is no meaningful separation.

Quote by Seeker4

Beffer mentions separate executive and legislative branches which would mandate a presidential system like the USA and France. Parliamentary systems, at least the UK-based ones I am familiar with, draw the cabinet from parliament so there is no meaningful separation.

That's why I prefer the dualism we have in the Netherlands (and other countries too), where Ministers can not be MPs. They're often, not always, people who were elected as MP. But once they become a member of the Cabinet, they have to resign as MP.

Quote by noll

That's why I prefer the dualism we have in the Netherlands (and other countries too), where the Ministers can not be MPs. They're often, not always, people who were elected as MP. But once they become a member of the Cabinet, they have to resign as MP.

Interesting. In the British tradition that we follow, Cabinet members have to be MPs so they can be questioned in debates on bills and in Question Period. The odd time a major portfolio is chosen from the Senate, there's usually great upset. And if someone not in Parliament is chosen as a party leader or cabinet minister, the expectation is that they will run in a by-election as soon as possible. I do kind of like the Dutch idea, though.

Quote by Seeker4

Interesting. In the British tradition that we follow, Cabinet members have to be MPs so they can be questioned in debates on bills and in Question Period. The odd time a major portfolio is chosen from the Senate, there's usually great upset. And if someone not in Parliament is chosen as a party leader or cabinet minister, the expectation is that they will run in a by-election as soon as possible.

In our parliamentary system MPs can question the Cabinet members too. I don't see why Ministers should be MPs for that.

Quote by noll

In our parliamentary system MPs can question the Cabinet members too. I don't see why Ministers should be MPs for that.

It is all tradition, really. Ministers could be called before the Committee of the Whole (i.e. the entire Commons) when a bill in their portfolio is being debated. Question Period could be more difficult since that's time for ad hoc questions so you would have to have the whole Cabinet present.

Is the Dutch parliament bicameral (I.e. two houses like in Britain, Canada, and the US)?

Quote by Seeker4

It is all tradition, really. Ministers could be called before the Committee of the Whole (i.e. the entire Commons) when a bill in their portfolio is being debated. Question Period could be more difficult since that's time for ad hoc questions so you would have to have the whole Cabinet present.

Is the Dutch parliament bicameral (I.e. two houses like in Britain, Canada, and the US)?

I don't see why it woud be more difficult, because in your system you would also have to have the whole Cabinet present for ad hoc questions.

Our parliament is bicameral too indeed. It just doesn't use the Westminster system, but the Consensus system and has the semi-circular setup that often comes with that.

The Dutch lower chamber. MPs are seated in the semi-circle. The raised seat left of center is that of the Speaker, surrounded by clerks. On the right are the seats for the Cabinet.

Quote by noll

I don't see why it woud be more difficult, because in your system you would also have to have the whole Cabinet present for ad hoc questions.

Our parliament is bicameral too indeed. It just doesn't use the Westminster system, but the Consensus system and has the semi-circular setup that often comes with that.

The Dutch lower chamber. MPs are seated in the semi-circle. The raised seat left of center is that of the Speaker, surrounded by clerks. On the right are the seats for the Cabinet.

The Scottish Parliament actually uses a plan similar to that. We toured it when we were in the UK in 2019. And I like the consensus system but it has never really been widely tried here. The territorial legislature in Nunavut uses a consensus system I think, but the territory is predominantly indigenous people and consensus is more compatible with their traditions.

And I'm not sure it is really a difficulty, but I know it is an argument that would come up if we tried to change it. As I said, we use the Westminster system because we started as a British colony so tradition has dictated a lot including the idea that Cabinet has to come from Parliament. Had we made a clean break with Westminster like our neighbours to the South, things might have gone differently. Though the most likely scenario there would be that I would be living in the United States right now.

Quote by Seeker4

The Scottish Parliament actually uses a plan similar to that. We toured it when we were in the UK in 2019. And I like the consensus system but it has never really been widely tried here. The territorial legislature in Nunavut uses a consensus system I think, but the territory is predominantly indigenous people and consensus is more compatible with their traditions.

And I'm not sure it is really a difficulty, but I know it is an argument that would come up if we tried to change it. As I said, we use the Westminster system because we started as a British colony so tradition has dictated a lot including the idea that Cabinet has to come from Parliament. Had we made a clean break with Westminster like our neighbours to the South, things might have gone differently. Though the most likely scenario there would be that I would be living in the United States right now.

In the Scottish Parliament the Ministers sit at the front section of the semicircle, suggesting they're still Members of Parliament.

I'm not sure whether the Scottish Parliament is considered using a Consensus or Westminster system, though it seems to be the latter, even though their parliament has the semicircle setup more common to the Consensus system. A quick search didn't provide a clear answer to that, in part because many articles about Scottish Parliament include references to the UK Parliament in Westminster, making it hard to come up with a good search query.

Yeah, I think they are technically still Westminster, just tweaked. I do believe that, like Canadian provinces, they are unicameral and don't have an upper house.

Quote by PissedOffWhiteGirl

Representative democracy tempered by assassination

That's not what this thread is about. It's about system of government. As in how it is organised. See the poll at the top, or even beter, the link in the OP, for reference.

Funny that there's no votes for absolute monarchy. I guess my dreams of one day ruling over the world with an iron fist are smashed. 😢

😜

Quote by Seeker4

Funny that there's no votes for absolute monarchy. I guess my dreams of one day ruling over the world with an iron fist are smashed. 😢

😜

You might wanna try the one-party state instead.

Oh. Heck! We might as well go with Buz Bono, world Dictator, with Sprite as Minister of Defense and Subjugation.

I will wear a really cool banana republic uniform, weighted down with shiny, colorful medals, a silk sash, a dictator marshal's cap.

I'm thinking DanielX as minister of Debauchery

And Magical Felix will be a Minister of some kind, maybe Chief of Staff. Wellmademale will be Duke of Las Vegas. I'm not sure what Noll will be in charge of. I'll take suggestions. Plus, l'll entertain Minister applications from the rest of you.