Each country is governed by different types of government which largely depends on the fact that how’s state executive, legislature and judicial organs are structured. Democratic governments are those which allow its citizens to manage their governments either directly or indirectly.Two of the most admired democratic governments are Presidential and Parliamentary Governments and there is always an extreme debate that whether the prevailing democracies should go for Parliamentary or Presidential systems. The main part of this debate underlines an incredible meaningful discern between them. The focus of this article is to examine the variation between these two institutions followed by the conclusion. According to Garner, Presidentialism is an US-style principle in which the legislative and executive branches are bisected and the parliament has no call in the selection of the president, who is elected by the whole nation and therefore has a powerful ordinance.

Examples include USA and Latin America.Whereases Parliamentary system, often referred to as a Westminster model, is a system in which legislature has a final say in the choice of the head of the government. Examples include Canada, UK and Australia. According to Authorized intellectuals, the separation of powers serves as one of the most noticeable difference between them. The thesis of separation of power asserts to put constitutional restraints on the power of the government so that it does not exceed its defined limits and respect the dominion of  branches (Albert,2009).

In presidential system, executive and legislative branches are separated and there is no distinction between  the post of  head of state and head of government, and both of which are conducted by president. Whereas in Parliamentary system, the power is separated between two wings of the state, the crown which includes the judiciary and the parliament and there is a clear distinction between the head of government and head of state, where head of government is the prime minister and head of state is the president.In contradiction with these statements Samuel and Shugart believes that such a discernible difference between these systems tends to create intra-part dilemma and moral hazards in presidential regimes and authoritativeness in parliamentary system (Elgie, 2011).

Secondly, these systems are also distinguishable on the basis of their electoral patterns. Presidential systems conform to fixed election period for both legislative and executive branches. Alternatively, elections in parliamentary systems are based upon the discretionary power of the prime minister which is contingent to an intervening vote of no confidence motion in legislature (Albert, 2009).Thirdly, the efficient regulation of governmental affairs points our towards the capacity of the head of government to conduct its agendas precisely through legislative procedures. This function basically calls for the efficient collaboration between legislative and executive systems.

Normally it is believed that parliamentary democratic system is more effective than presidential system because in presidentialism where government is highly divided, the approval of any legislative program becomes more demanding because there are different parties who control the legislative and executive branches and thus there are many contenders and higher rejection rates. Consequently, conflicts takes place and the system becomes powerless to deadlock. As oppose to this, parliamentary system are more accountable in the sense that its two branches are fused together which creates a platforms for high debates and more efficiency rates. To sum up, this article gives us an overview of some of the most important differences between these systems and gives us a broader idea of how these systems work.

Further in this article, I will like to discuss which system of democracy is most preferable in the present time and whether it remains intense on its democratic principles or not.