Call/WhatsApp/Text: +44 20 3289 5183

Question: Are presidential systems more susceptible to democratic decay?

19 Dec 2022,2:34 PM

Essential Post-Lecture Reading

 

Richard H Pildes, “Elections” in Michel Rosenfeld and András Sajó (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law 529 - ON MOODLE.

 

Further Readings

Tom Gerald Daly, “Democratic Decay: Conceptualising an Emerging Research Field” (2019) 11 Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 9

 

Martin Loughlin, “The Contemporary Crisis of Constitutional Democracy” (2019) 39(2) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 435

 

Lecture Outline

 

What is democracy?

  • More than mere elections. (Basic view of democracy)
  • The notion of democracy goes back to the origins in Ancient Greece- notion of power of the people (“government of the people, by the people, for the people” (Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, 1853)
  • It is very people centric. Comes back to notion of people. (Representation, election, consultation, etc…)

 

Distinction between representative (indirect) and participatory (direct) democracies and consideration of the diverse nature of representative systems: “Parliamentary and presidential systems, constitutional monarchies, authoritarian-populist regimes, centralised and federal states, one- or two- chamber parliaments, etc - and a diversity of electoral systems”

(Frankenberg).

  • In practical terms it is easy to distinguish between democracies that afford citizens a substantial role in governance, and those that afford the people less of a role in governance.

 

  1. Representative democracies

Representatives make elections on behalf of the people.

 

  1. Direct Democracies

People contribute beyond elections,

Citizens are constantly consulted,

Frequent Referendum

Example: Switzerland (the best developed democracy).

 

It does not have to be separate of the two, for example; the UK (has some referendums), contains particular decisions and policies of inclusivity (key word: particular circumstances); Three national referendum. But it is ultimately a Representative Democracy.

 

We have countries that are undoubtably representative in their nature but have used direct democracies.

 

Representative Democracies are more common. 

Representative Democracy

  • Diverse nature of representative systems: “Parliamentary and presidential systems, constitutional monarchies, authoritarian-populist regimes, centralised and federal states, one- or two- chamber parliaments, etc - and a diversity of electoral systems” (Frankenberg).
  • Liberal Constitutional Democracy

 

  • “[T]hree conceptually separate but functionally intertwined elements … These are, first, a democratic electoral system - most importantly, periodic free and fair elections in which the modal adult can vote - after which, the losing side concedes power to the winning side. The second prong … comprises the particular liberal rights to speech and association that are closely linked to democracy in practice. Finally, … a level of integrity of law and legal institutions - that is, the rule of law - sufficient to allow democratic engagement without fear or coercion”

Ginsburg and Huq

 

“At the end of the Second World War, there were only 12 established constitutional democracies in the world. By 1987 this number had grown to 66 of the world’s 193 United National member states, and by 2003, the 1987 figure had almost doubled to 121”

Loughlin

 

  • Notion of liberal constitutional democracy involving “three conceptually separate but functionally intertwined elements … These are, first, a democratic electoral system - most importantly, periodic free and fair elections in which the modal adult can vote - after which, the losing side concedes power to the winning side. The second prong … comprises the particular liberal rights to speech and association that are closely linked to democracy in practice. Finally, … a level of integrity of law and legal institutions - that is, the rule of law - sufficient to allow democratic engagement without fear or coercion”

(Ginsburg and Huq).

 

Understanding the importance of elections.

And taking into consideration how to make said elections ‘democratic’.

 

At the end of the Second World War, there were only 12 established constitutional democracies by the world. By 1987 this number had grown to 66 of the world’s 193 United national member states, and by 2003, the 1987 figure had almost doubled to 121”

(Loughlin)

 

Number of issues with the spread of democracy;

  • YES, It is important & fundamental;
  • Its value is shown in the constitutional text of many different countries.

 

  • “Spain is hereby established as a social and democratic State” (Section 1(1), Constitution of Spain).
  • “Hungary shall be an independent, democratic rule-of-law State” (Article B(1), Constitution of Hungary).
  • “The Republic of Belarus is a unitary, democratic, social state based on the rule of law” (Article 1, Constitution of Belarus).
  • “Pakistan shall be Federal Republic to be known as the Islamic Republic of  Pakistan, hereinafter referred to as Pakistan” (Article 1(1), Constitution of Pakistan).
  • “The Republic of South Africa is one, sovereign, democratic state” (Article 1, Constitution of South Africa).

 

  • The countries identity they are a democratic state, this is reflected in it’s constitution,

But there is an issue with this.

 

The fact that it’s written in their constitution does not justify the fact that they are a democratic country.

 

Example:

  • Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of) 1972 (rev. 2016)

“The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”

 

“If we take the number of people who claim to endorse democracy at face value, no regime type in the history of mankind has held such universal and global appeal as”

“If we take the number of people who claim to endorse democracy at face value, no regime type in the history of mankind has held such universal and global appeal as democracy does today … virtually every existing political regime today claims to embody some form of democracy”.

Miller

 

 

 

 

Democracy?

  • “All state organs in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are formed and function on the principle of democratic centralism” (Article 5, Constitution of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea).
  • “Russia is a democratic federative law-governed state with a republican form of government” (Article 1, Constitution of the Russian Federation).

 

  1. ELECTIONS AND REFERENDUMS

 

  • Free, fair, regular elections (coupled with the fundamental rights to vote)
  • The strength of the representation relies on the way the voting occurs also. Electoral systems.

 

Institutions eligible for election:

  • United Kingdom
    • House of Commons
  • United States of America
    • House of Representatives
    • Senate
    • President
  • Germany
    • Bundestag (Federal Parliament, directly elected by the people)
    • Cf: Bundesrat (Upper-Chamber, elected by the respective governmental officials; upper-people in Germany)
    • and Chancellor ( Elected by the Bundestag)

 

Take into account the diversity of electoral systems:

 

  • “[O]nly 19 per cent of constitutions specify, in any detail, the electoral system for the lower house of the legislature. Instead most constitutions either explicitly leave to ordinary law the design of electoral systems for the legislature … and the drawing of districts … or do not mention election law issues of either kind at all”

 

[Elkins, Ginsburg, and Melton]

 

Electoral Systems

  • First Past the Post
  • Proportional Representation
  • Single Transferable Vote & Alternative Vote
  • Dual Systems (i.e. Germany)

 

  • FPTP, PR etc. Also, a diversity of the institutions and individuals that are susceptible to election across the world.

 

 

  • “[E]lectoral systems must be seen and studied in relation to the whole constitutional order, as well as to the social and other conditions of the country concerned. Popular government requires the working out of a system adapted to the peculiar needs of the country”

Friedrich

 

[REFERENDUM]

        • Referendums and their use across the world.
          • Constitution of France makes extensive provision for the use of referendums.
  • “The President of the Republic may, on a recommendation from the Government when Parliament is in session, or on a joint motion of the two Houses, published in the Journal Officiel, submit to a referendum any Government Bill which deals with the organization of the public authorities, or with reforms relating to the economic or social policy of the Nation, and to the public services contributing thereto, or which provides for authorization to ratify a treaty which, although not contrary to the Constitution, would affect the functioning of the institutions” (Article 11, Constitution of France).

 

  • “A Government or a Private Member's Bill to amend the Constitution must be considered within the time limits set down in the third paragraph of article 42 and be passed by the two Houses in identical terms. The amendment shall take effect after approval by referendum” (Article 89, Constitution of France).

 

DEMOCRATIC DECAY

 

The decline of democracy across the world.

 

  • “The dramatic failures of the Arab Spring movements of 2011 - Egypt reverting to military rule, Libya, Yemen and Syria descending into armed conflict, and political repression deepening in the Gulf states - is only the most high-profile instance of this decline. Of more general significance have been the emergence of so-called ‘illiberal democracies’ in Hungary and Poland, and the growing electoral success of nationalist parties …. [in France, Germany and Austria]. Constitutional values have been eroded by the increasing political influence of religious fundamentalism in countries like Israel, Turkey and India, and by the rise of power of authoritarian presidential figures like Maduro in Venezuela in 2013, Duterte in the Philippines in 2016, Trump in the United States in 2016 and Bolsonaro in Brazil in 2018. Similarly emblematic has been the failure of South Africa, following the remarkable initial successes of post-Apartheid constitutional formation, to establish a regime of multi-party democracy”

 

Democratic Decay

  • Freedom house “found indicators of democratic degradation in 71 countries and concluded that constitutional democracy was facing its most serious crisis in decades”.
  • “[T]he incremental degradation of the structures and substance of liberal (constitutional) democracy” (Tom Gerald Daly)

A picture containing table Description automatically generated

 

 

“Incremental and Gradual”

Democratic delay will take place within the parameters of what is ordinary & acceptable.

  • Blatant dictatorship- in the form of fascism, communism, or military rule- has disappeared across much of the world. Military coups and other violent seizures of power are rare” (Levitsky and Ziblatt)
  • Lawful and constitutional activity; elections still occur; the press might still operate.
  • “Typically, an aggregative process made up of many smaller increments… many of [which] are ‘conceal[ed] under the mask of law’… Even though most or even all of the individual steps [towards decay] are taken within constitutional limits, in sum they lead to qualitative changes in the legal and political systems” (Ginsburg and Huq)

 

“Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal’, in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy - making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process … People do not immediately realize what is happening. Many continue to believe they are living under a democracy … Because there is no single moment - no coup, declaration of martial law, or suspension of the constitution … nothing may set off society’s alarm bells … Democracy’s erosion is, for many, almost imperceptible”

Levitsky and Ziblatt

 

Examples of Decay

  • Belarus
  • Hungary
  • Malta
  • Slovakia
  • USA
  • Poland
  • Venezuela
  • UK

 

Examples of democratic decay in Belarus, Hungary, Poland, Malta (assassination of journalists), Slovakia, USA (2010 elections, trump), Venezuela, and UK (rise of populism, Brexit).

 

“Maduro manipulated the electoral process … to his advantage; electoral irregularities included everything from intimidation and disenfranchisement of voters to improper tabulation of the results to outright bans on the participation of Venezuela’s most popular political parties and candidates … Since retaining power, the Maduro regime continues to disregard and repress the voices of the Venezuelan people in their calls for a return to democracy. Maduro is dismantling Venezuela’s democratic institutions, economy and infrastructure through abuse of state power and through alliances with outside nations including Cuba, Russia, Iran, and China, that repress the Venezuelan people further”.

Expert answer

 

Presidential systems are a form of government in which the head of state is also the head of government and holds executive power. These systems are characterized by a separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, with the president serving as the chief executive and the head of the executive branch. Many countries worldwide, including the United States, Brazil, and India, have adopted presidential systems of government.

There is an ongoing debate about presidential systems' relative strengths and weaknesses, with some arguing that they are more prone to democratic decay than other forms of government. Democratic decay refers to the erosion or decline of democratic institutions and practices, often due to authoritarian or undemocratic behavior by those in power.

One argument for the susceptibility of presidential systems to democratic decay is that they can lead to a concentration of power in the hands of the president. In these systems, the president is often able to wield significant influence over the executive branch and may have the power to appoint and dismiss key officials, including those in charge of law enforcement and the judiciary. This concentration of power can create opportunities for the president to undermine democratic institutions and practices, particularly if they are not held accountable by other branches of government or by the public.

Another factor that may contribute to democratic decay in presidential systems is the potential for gridlock between the executive and legislative branches. In these systems, the president and the legislature are often elected separately, which can lead to conflicts of interest and a lack of cooperation between the two branches. This can lead to a breakdown in the decision-making process, as the president and legislature may be unable to reach agreements on key issues. This can result in a lack of progress on important policy matters and can ultimately undermine the legitimacy of the democratic system.

Additionally, some argue that presidential systems can be more prone to corruption and abuse of power. In these systems, the president is often not subject to the same checks and balances as in parliamentary systems, where the head of government is typically responsible to the legislature and can be removed by a vote of no confidence. This can make it more difficult to hold the president accountable for their actions and can create opportunities for corrupt behavior.

There are also concerns about the potential for polarizing politics in presidential systems. In these systems, the president is often seen as representing the interests of their political party rather than those of the country as a whole. This can lead to a lack of consensus and cooperation between the two main political parties, which can further contribute to gridlock and undermine the effectiveness of the democratic system.

However, it is important to note that presidential systems are not inherently more susceptible to democratic decay than other forms of government. Many countries with presidential systems have strong democratic traditions and have been able to maintain these traditions over time. Additionally, there are examples of parliamentary systems that have experienced democratic decay, such as Hungary and Poland, which suggests that other factors, such as the strength of civil society and the rule of law, may be more important in determining the resilience of democracy.

In conclusion, while there are valid concerns about the potential for presidential systems to contribute to democratic decay, it is important to recognize that these systems are not inherently more prone to such decay than other forms of government. The resilience of a democracy depends on a range of factors, including the strength of civil society, the rule of law, and the accountability of those in power. It is up to the citizens of a country to ensure that their democratic institutions and practices are protected and that their leaders are held accountable for their actions.

 

Presidential systems are a form of government in which the head of state is also the head of government and holds executive power. These systems are characterized by a separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, with the president serving as the chief executive and the head of the executive branch. Many countries worldwide, including the United States, Brazil, and India, have adopted presidential systems of government.

There is an ongoing debate about presidential systems' relative strengths and weaknesses, with some arguing that they are more prone to democratic decay than other forms of government. Democratic decay refers to the erosion or decline of democratic institutions and practices, often due to authoritarian or undemocratic behavior by those in power.

One argument for the susceptibility of presidential systems to democratic decay is that they can lead to a concentration of power in the hands of the president. In these systems, the president is often able to wield significant influence over the executive branch and may have the power to appoint and dismiss key officials, including those in charge of law enforcement and the judiciary. This concentration of power can create opportunities for the president to undermine democratic institutions and practices, particularly if they are not held accountable by other branches of government or by the public.

Another factor that may contribute to democratic decay in presidential systems is the potential for gridlock between the executive and legislative branches. In these systems, the president and the legislature are often elected separately, which can lead to conflicts of interest and a lack of cooperation between the two branches. This can lead to a breakdown in the decision-making process, as the president and legislature may be unable to reach agreements on key issues. This can result in a lack of progress on important policy matters and can ultimately undermine the legitimacy of the democratic system.

Additionally, some argue that presidential systems can be more prone to corruption and abuse of power. In these systems, the president is often not subject to the same checks and balances as in parliamentary systems, where the head of government is typically responsible to the legislature and can be removed by a vote of no confidence. This can make it more difficult to hold the president accountable for their actions and can create opportunities for corrupt behavior.

There are also concerns about the potential for polarizing politics in presidential systems. In these systems, the president is often seen as representing the interests of their political party rather than those of the country as a whole. This can lead to a lack of consensus and cooperation between the two main political parties, which can further contribute to gridlock and undermine the effectiveness of the democratic system.

However, it is important to note that presidential systems are not inherently more susceptible to democratic decay than other forms of government. Many countries with presidential systems have strong democratic traditions and have been able to maintain these traditions over time. Additionally, there are examples of parliamentary systems that have experienced democratic decay, such as Hungary and Poland, which suggests that other factors, such as the strength of civil society and the rule of law, may be more important in determining the resilience of democracy.

In conclusion, while there are valid concerns about the potential for presidential systems to contribute to democratic decay, it is important to recognize that these systems are not inherently more prone to such decay than other forms of government. The resilience of a democracy depends on a range of factors, including the strength of civil society, the rule of law, and the accountability of those in power. It is up to the citizens of a country to ensure that their democratic institutions and practices are protected and that their leaders are held accountable for their actions.

Presidential systems are a form of government in which the head of state is also the head of government and holds executive power. These systems are characterized by a separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, with the president serving as the chief executive and the head of the executive branch. Many countries worldwide, including the United States, Brazil, and India, have adopted presidential systems of government.

There is an ongoing debate about presidential systems' relative strengths and weaknesses, with some arguing that they are more prone to democratic decay than other forms of government. Democratic decay refers to the erosion or decline of democratic institutions and practices, often due to authoritarian or undemocratic behavior by those in power.

One argument for the susceptibility of presidential systems to democratic decay is that they can lead to a concentration of power in the hands of the president. In these systems, the president is often able to wield significant influence over the executive branch and may have the power to appoint and dismiss key officials, including those in charge of law enforcement and the judiciary. This concentration of power can create opportunities for the president to undermine democratic institutions and practices, particularly if they are not held accountable by other branches of government or by the public.

Another factor that may contribute to democratic decay in presidential systems is the potential for gridlock between the executive and legislative branches. In these systems, the president and the legislature are often elected separately, which can lead to conflicts of interest and a lack of cooperation between the two branches. This can lead to a breakdown in the decision-making process, as the president and legislature may be unable to reach agreements on key issues. This can result in a lack of progress on important policy matters and can ultimately undermine the legitimacy of the democratic system.

Additionally, some argue that presidential systems can be more prone to corruption and abuse of power. In these systems, the president is often not subject to the same checks and balances as in parliamentary systems, where the head of government is typically responsible to the legislature and can be removed by a vote of no confidence. This can make it more difficult to hold the president accountable for their actions and can create opportunities for corrupt behavior.

There are also concerns about the potential for polarizing politics in presidential systems. In these systems, the president is often seen as representing the interests of their political party rather than those of the country as a whole. This can lead to a lack of consensus and cooperation between the two main political parties, which can further contribute to gridlock and undermine the effectiveness of the democratic system.

However, it is important to note that presidential systems are not inherently more susceptible to democratic decay than other forms of government. Many countries with presidential systems have strong democratic traditions and have been able to maintain these traditions over time. Additionally, there are examples of parliamentary systems that have experienced democratic decay, such as Hungary and Poland, which suggests that other factors, such as the strength of civil society and the rule of law, may be more important in determining the resilience of democracy.

In conclusion, while there are valid concerns about the potential for presidential systems to contribute to democratic decay, it is important to recognize that these systems are not inherently more prone to such decay than other forms of government. The resilience of a democracy depends on a range of factors, including the strength of civil society, the rule of law, and the accountability of those in power. It is up to the citizens of a country to ensure that their democratic institutions and practices are protected and that their leaders are held accountable for their actions.

Presidential systems are a form of government in which the head of state is also the head of government and holds executive power. These systems are characterized by a separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, with the president serving as the chief executive and the head of the executive branch. Many countries worldwide, including the United States, Brazil, and India, have adopted presidential systems of government.

There is an ongoing debate about presidential systems' relative strengths and weaknesses, with some arguing that they are more prone to democratic decay than other forms of government. Democratic decay refers to the erosion or decline of democratic institutions and practices, often due to authoritarian or undemocratic behavior by those in power.

One argument for the susceptibility of presidential systems to democratic decay is that they can lead to a concentration of power in the hands of the president. In these systems, the president is often able to wield significant influence over the executive branch and may have the power to appoint and dismiss key officials, including those in charge of law enforcement and the judiciary. This concentration of power can create opportunities for the president to undermine democratic institutions and practices, particularly if they are not held accountable by other branches of government or by the public.

Another factor that may contribute to democratic decay in presidential systems is the potential for gridlock between the executive and legislative branches. In these systems, the president and the legislature are often elected separately, which can lead to conflicts of interest and a lack of cooperation between the two branches. This can lead to a breakdown in the decision-making process, as the president and legislature may be unable to reach agreements on key issues. This can result in a lack of progress on important policy matters and can ultimately undermine the legitimacy of the democratic system.

Additionally, some argue that presidential systems can be more prone to corruption and abuse of power. In these systems, the president is often not subject to the same checks and balances as in parliamentary systems, where the head of government is typically responsible to the legislature and can be removed by a vote of no confidence. This can make it more difficult to hold the president accountable for their actions and can create opportunities for corrupt behavior.

There are also concerns about the potential for polarizing politics in presidential systems. In these systems, the president is often seen as representing the interests of their political party rather than those of the country as a whole. This can lead to a lack of consensus and cooperation between the two main political parties, which can further contribute to gridlock and undermine the effectiveness of the democratic system.

However, it is important to note that presidential systems are not inherently more susceptible to democratic decay than other forms of government. Many countries with presidential systems have strong democratic traditions and have been able to maintain these traditions over time. Additionally, there are examples of parliamentary systems that have experienced democratic decay, such as Hungary and Poland, which suggests that other factors, such as the strength of civil society and the rule of law, may be more important in determining the resilience of democracy.

In conclusion, while there are valid concerns about the potential for presidential systems to contribute to democratic decay, it is important to recognize that these systems are not inherently more prone to such decay than other forms of government. The resilience of a democracy depends on a range of factors, including the strength of civil society, the rule of law, and the accountability of those in power. It is up to the citizens of a country to ensure that their democratic institutions and practices are protected and that their leaders are held accountable for their actions.

Presidential systems are a form of government in which the head of state is also the head of government and holds executive power. These systems are characterized by a separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, with the president serving as the chief executive and the head of the executive branch. Many countries worldwide, including the United States, Brazil, and India, have adopted presidential systems of government.

There is an ongoing debate about presidential systems' relative strengths and weaknesses, with some arguing that they are more prone to democratic decay than other forms of government. Democratic decay refers to the erosion or decline of democratic institutions and practices, often due to authoritarian or undemocratic behavior by those in power.

One argument for the susceptibility of presidential systems to democratic decay is that they can lead to a concentration of power in the hands of the president. In these systems, the president is often able to wield significant influence over the executive branch and may have the power to appoint and dismiss key officials, including those in charge of law enforcement and the judiciary. This concentration of power can create opportunities for the president to undermine democratic institutions and practices, particularly if they are not held accountable by other branches of government or by the public.

Another factor that may contribute to democratic decay in presidential systems is the potential for gridlock between the executive and legislative branches. In these systems, the president and the legislature are often elected separately, which can lead to conflicts of interest and a lack of cooperation between the two branches. This can lead to a breakdown in the decision-making process, as the president and legislature may be unable to reach agreements on key issues. This can result in a lack of progress on important policy matters and can ultimately undermine the legitimacy of the democratic system.

Additionally, some argue that presidential systems can be more prone to corruption and abuse of power. In these systems, the president is often not subject to the same checks and balances as in parliamentary systems, where the head of government is typically responsible to the legislature and can be removed by a vote of no confidence. This can make it more difficult to hold the president accountable for their actions and can create opportunities for corrupt behavior.

There are also concerns about the potential for polarizing politics in presidential systems. In these systems, the president is often seen as representing the interests of their political party rather than those of the country as a whole. This can lead to a lack of consensus and cooperation between the two main political parties, which can further contribute to gridlock and undermine the effectiveness of the democratic system.

However, it is important to note that presidential systems are not inherently more susceptible to democratic decay than other forms of government. Many countries with presidential systems have strong democratic traditions and have been able to maintain these traditions over time. Additionally, there are examples of parliamentary systems that have experienced democratic decay, such as Hungary and Poland, which suggests that other factors, such as the strength of civil society and the rule of law, may be more important in determining the resilience of democracy.

In conclusion, while there are valid concerns about the potential for presidential systems to contribute to democratic decay, it is important to recognize that these systems are not inherently more prone to such decay than other forms of government. The resilience of a democracy depends on a range of factors, including the strength of civil society, the rule of law, and the accountability of those in power. It is up to the citizens of a country to ensure that their democratic institutions and practices are protected and that their leaders are held accountable for their actions.

Presidential systems are a form of government in which the head of state is also the head of government and holds executive power. These systems are characterized by a separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, with the president serving as the chief executive and the head of the executive branch. Many countries worldwide, including the United States, Brazil, and India, have adopted presidential systems of government.

There is an ongoing debate about presidential systems' relative strengths and weaknesses, with some arguing that they are more prone to democratic decay than other forms of government. Democratic decay refers to the erosion or decline of democratic institutions and practices, often due to authoritarian or undemocratic behavior by those in power.

One argument for the susceptibility of presidential systems to democratic decay is that they can lead to a concentration of power in the hands of the president. In these systems, the president is often able to wield significant influence over the executive branch and may have the power to appoint and dismiss key officials, including those in charge of law enforcement and the judiciary. This concentration of power can create opportunities for the president to undermine democratic institutions and practices, particularly if they are not held accountable by other branches of government or by the public.

Another factor that may contribute to democratic decay in presidential systems is the potential for gridlock between the executive and legislative branches. In these systems, the president and the legislature are often elected separately, which can lead to conflicts of interest and a lack of cooperation between the two branches. This can lead to a breakdown in the decision-making process, as the president and legislature may be unable to reach agreements on key issues. This can result in a lack of progress on important policy matters and can ultimately undermine the legitimacy of the democratic system.

Additionally, some argue that presidential systems can be more prone to corruption and abuse of power. In these systems, the president is often not subject to the same checks and balances as in parliamentary systems, where the head of government is typically responsible to the legislature and can be removed by a vote of no confidence. This can make it more difficult to hold the president accountable for their actions and can create opportunities for corrupt behavior.

There are also concerns about the potential for polarizing politics in presidential systems. In these systems, the president is often seen as representing the interests of their political party rather than those of the country as a whole. This can lead to a lack of consensus and cooperation between the two main political parties, which can further contribute to gridlock and undermine the effectiveness of the democratic system.

However, it is important to note that presidential systems are not inherently more susceptible to democratic decay than other forms of government. Many countries with presidential systems have strong democratic traditions and have been able to maintain these traditions over time. Additionally, there are examples of parliamentary systems that have experienced democratic decay, such as Hungary and Poland, which suggests that other factors, such as the strength of civil society and the rule of law, may be more important in determining the resilience of democracy.

In conclusion, while there are valid concerns about the potential for presidential systems to contribute to democratic decay, it is important to recognize that these systems are not inherently more prone to such decay than other forms of government. The resilience of a democracy depends on a range of factors, including the strength of civil society, the rule of law, and the accountability of those in power. It is up to the citizens of a country to ensure that their democratic institutions and practices are protected and that their leaders are held accountable for their actions.

Presidential systems are a form of government in which the head of state is also the head of government and holds executive power. These systems are characterized by a separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, with the president serving as the chief executive and the head of the executive branch. Many countries worldwide, including the United States, Brazil, and India, have adopted presidential systems of government.

There is an ongoing debate about presidential systems' relative strengths and weaknesses, with some arguing that they are more prone to democratic decay than other forms of government. Democratic decay refers to the erosion or decline of democratic institutions and practices, often due to authoritarian or undemocratic behavior by those in power.

One argument for the susceptibility of presidential systems to democratic decay is that they can lead to a concentration of power in the hands of the president. In these systems, the president is often able to wield significant influence over the executive branch and may have the power to appoint and dismiss key officials, including those in charge of law enforcement and the judiciary. This concentration of power can create opportunities for the president to undermine democratic institutions and practices, particularly if they are not held accountable by other branches of government or by the public.

Another factor that may contribute to democratic decay in presidential systems is the potential for gridlock between the executive and legislative branches. In these systems, the president and the legislature are often elected separately, which can lead to conflicts of interest and a lack of cooperation between the two branches. This can lead to a breakdown in the decision-making process, as the president and legislature may be unable to reach agreements on key issues. This can result in a lack of progress on important policy matters and can ultimately undermine the legitimacy of the democratic system.

Additionally, some argue that presidential systems can be more prone to corruption and abuse of power. In these systems, the president is often not subject to the same checks and balances as in parliamentary systems, where the head of government is typically responsible to the legislature and can be removed by a vote of no confidence. This can make it more difficult to hold the president accountable for their actions and can create opportunities for corrupt behavior.

There are also concerns about the potential for polarizing politics in presidential systems. In these systems, the president is often seen as representing the interests of their political party rather than those of the country as a whole. This can lead to a lack of consensus and cooperation between the two main political parties, which can further contribute to gridlock and undermine the effectiveness of the democratic system.

However, it is important to note that presidential systems are not inherently more susceptible to democratic decay than other forms of government. Many countries with presidential systems have strong democratic traditions and have been able to maintain these traditions over time. Additionally, there are examples of parliamentary systems that have experienced democratic decay, such as Hungary and Poland, which suggests that other factors, such as the strength of civil society and the rule of law, may be more important in determining the resilience of democracy.

In conclusion, while there are valid concerns about the potential for presidential systems to contribute to democratic decay, it is important to recognize that these systems are not inherently more prone to such decay than other forms of government. The resilience of a democracy depends on a range of factors, including the strength of civil society, the rule of law, and the accountability of those in power. It is up to the citizens of a country to ensure that their democratic institutions and practices are protected and that their leaders are held accountable for their actions.

Presidential systems are a form of government in which the head of state is also the head of government and holds executive power. These systems are characterized by a separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, with the president serving as the chief executive and the head of the executive branch. Many countries worldwide, including the United States, Brazil, and India, have adopted presidential systems of government.

There is an ongoing debate about presidential systems' relative strengths and weaknesses, with some arguing that they are more prone to democratic decay than other forms of government. Democratic decay refers to the erosion or decline of democratic institutions and practices, often due to authoritarian or undemocratic behavior by those in power.

One argument for the susceptibility of presidential systems to democratic decay is that they can lead to a concentration of power in the hands of the president. In these systems, the president is often able to wield significant influence over the executive branch and may have the power to appoint and dismiss key officials, including those in charge of law enforcement and the judiciary. This concentration of power can create opportunities for the president to undermine democratic institutions and practices, particularly if they are not held accountable by other branches of government or by the public.

Another factor that may contribute to democratic decay in presidential systems is the potential for gridlock between the executive and legislative branches. In these systems, the president and the legislature are often elected separately, which can lead to conflicts of interest and a lack of cooperation between the two branches. This can lead to a breakdown in the decision-making process, as the president and legislature may be unable to reach agreements on key issues. This can result in a lack of progress on important policy matters and can ultimately undermine the legitimacy of the democratic system.

Additionally, some argue that presidential systems can be more prone to corruption and abuse of power. In these systems, the president is often not subject to the same checks and balances as in parliamentary systems, where the head of government is typically responsible to the legislature and can be removed by a vote of no confidence. This can make it more difficult to hold the president accountable for their actions and can create opportunities for corrupt behavior.

There are also concerns about the potential for polarizing politics in presidential systems. In these systems, the president is often seen as representing the interests of their political party rather than those of the country as a whole. This can lead to a lack of consensus and cooperation between the two main political parties, which can further contribute to gridlock and undermine the effectiveness of the democratic system.

However, it is important to note that presidential systems are not inherently more susceptible to democratic decay than other forms of government. Many countries with presidential systems have strong democratic traditions and have been able to maintain these traditions over time. Additionally, there are examples of parliamentary systems that have experienced democratic decay, such as Hungary and Poland, which suggests that other factors, such as the strength of civil society and the rule of law, may be more important in determining the resilience of democracy.

In conclusion, while there are valid concerns about the potential for presidential systems to contribute to democratic decay, it is important to recognize that these systems are not inherently more prone to such decay than other forms of government. The resilience of a democracy depends on a range of factors, including the strength of civil society, the rule of law, and the accountability of those in power. It is up to the citizens of a country to ensure that their democratic institutions and practices are protected and that their leaders are held accountable for their actions.

Presidential systems are a form of government in which the head of state is also the head of government and holds executive power. These systems are characterized by a separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, with the president serving as the chief executive and the head of the executive branch. Many countries worldwide, including the United States, Brazil, and India, have adopted presidential systems of government.

There is an ongoing debate about presidential systems' relative strengths and weaknesses, with some arguing that they are more prone to democratic decay than other forms of government. Democratic decay refers to the erosion or decline of democratic institutions and practices, often due to authoritarian or undemocratic behavior by those in power.

One argument for the susceptibility of presidential systems to democratic decay is that they can lead to a concentration of power in the hands of the president. In these systems, the president is often able to wield significant influence over the executive branch and may have the power to appoint and dismiss key officials, including those in charge of law enforcement and the judiciary. This concentration of power can create opportunities for the president to undermine democratic institutions and practices, particularly if they are not held accountable by other branches of government or by the public.

Another factor that may contribute to democratic decay in presidential systems is the potential for gridlock between the executive and legislative branches. In these systems, the president and the legislature are often elected separately, which can lead to conflicts of interest and a lack of cooperation between the two branches. This can lead to a breakdown in the decision-making process, as the president and legislature may be unable to reach agreements on key issues. This can result in a lack of progress on important policy matters and can ultimately undermine the legitimacy of the democratic system.

Additionally, some argue that presidential systems can be more prone to corruption and abuse of power. In these systems, the president is often not subject to the same checks and balances as in parliamentary systems, where the head of government is typically responsible to the legislature and can be removed by a vote of no confidence. This can make it more difficult to hold the president accountable for their actions and can create opportunities for corrupt behavior.

There are also concerns about the potential for polarizing politics in presidential systems. In these systems, the president is often seen as representing the interests of their political party rather than those of the country as a whole. This can lead to a lack of consensus and cooperation between the two main political parties, which can further contribute to gridlock and undermine the effectiveness of the democratic system.

However, it is important to note that presidential systems are not inherently more susceptible to democratic decay than other forms of government. Many countries with presidential systems have strong democratic traditions and have been able to maintain these traditions over time. Additionally, there are examples of parliamentary systems that have experienced democratic decay, such as Hungary and Poland, which suggests that other factors, such as the strength of civil society and the rule of law, may be more important in determining the resilience of democracy.

In conclusion, while there are valid concerns about the potential for presidential systems to contribute to democratic decay, it is important to recognize that these systems are not inherently more prone to such decay than other forms of government. The resilience of a democracy depends on a range of factors, including the strength of civil society, the rule of law, and the accountability of those in power. It is up to the citizens of a country to ensure that their democratic institutions and practices are protected and that their leaders are held accountable for their actions.

Presidential systems are a form of government in which the head of state is also the head of government and holds executive power. These systems are characterized by a separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, with the president serving as the chief executive and the head of the executive branch. Many countries worldwide, including the United States, Brazil, and India, have adopted presidential systems of government.

There is an ongoing debate about presidential systems' relative strengths and weaknesses, with some arguing that they are more prone to democratic decay than other forms of government. Democratic decay refers to the erosion or decline of democratic institutions and practices, often due to authoritarian or undemocratic behavior by those in power.

One argument for the susceptibility of presidential systems to democratic decay is that they can lead to a concentration of power in the hands of the president. In these systems, the president is often able to wield significant influence over the executive branch and may have the power to appoint and dismiss key officials, including those in charge of law enforcement and the judiciary. This concentration of power can create opportunities for the president to undermine democratic institutions and practices, particularly if they are not held accountable by other branches of government or by the public.

Another factor that may contribute to democratic decay in presidential systems is the potential for gridlock between the executive and legislative branches. In these systems, the president and the legislature are often elected separately, which can lead to conflicts of interest and a lack of cooperation between the two branches. This can lead to a breakdown in the decision-making process, as the president and legislature may be unable to reach agreements on key issues. This can result in a lack of progress on important policy matters and can ultimately undermine the legitimacy of the democratic system.

Additionally, some argue that presidential systems can be more prone to corruption and abuse of power. In these systems, the president is often not subject to the same checks and balances as in parliamentary systems, where the head of government is typically responsible to the legislature and can be removed by a vote of no confidence. This can make it more difficult to hold the president accountable for their actions and can create opportunities for corrupt behavior.

There are also concerns about the potential for polarizing politics in presidential systems. In these systems, the president is often seen as representing the interests of their political party rather than those of the country as a whole. This can lead to a lack of consensus and cooperation between the two main political parties, which can further contribute to gridlock and undermine the effectiveness of the democratic system.

However, it is important to note that presidential systems are not inherently more susceptible to democratic decay than other forms of government. Many countries with presidential systems have strong democratic traditions and have been able to maintain these traditions over time. Additionally, there are examples of parliamentary systems that have experienced democratic decay, such as Hungary and Poland, which suggests that other factors, such as the strength of civil society and the rule of law, may be more important in determining the resilience of democracy.

In conclusion, while there are valid concerns about the potential for presidential systems to contribute to democratic decay, it is important to recognize that these systems are not inherently more prone to such decay than other forms of government. The resilience of a democracy depends on a range of factors, including the strength of civil society, the rule of law, and the accountability of those in power. It is up to the citizens of a country to ensure that their democratic institutions and practices are protected and that their leaders are held accountable for their actions.

Presidential systems are a form of government in which the head of state is also the head of government and holds executive power. These systems are characterized by a separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, with the president serving as the chief executive and the head of the executive branch. Many countries worldwide, including the United States, Brazil, and India, have adopted presidential systems of government.

There is an ongoing debate about presidential systems' relative strengths and weaknesses, with some arguing that they are more prone to democratic decay than other forms of government. Democratic decay refers to the erosion or decline of democratic institutions and practices, often due to authoritarian or undemocratic behavior by those in power.

One argument for the susceptibility of presidential systems to democratic decay is that they can lead to a concentration of power in the hands of the president. In these systems, the president is often able to wield significant influence over the executive branch and may have the power to appoint and dismiss key officials, including those in charge of law enforcement and the judiciary. This concentration of power can create opportunities for the president to undermine democratic institutions and practices, particularly if they are not held accountable by other branches of government or by the public.

Another factor that may contribute to democratic decay in presidential systems is the potential for gridlock between the executive and legislative branches. In these systems, the president and the legislature are often elected separately, which can lead to conflicts of interest and a lack of cooperation between the two branches. This can lead to a breakdown in the decision-making process, as the president and legislature may be unable to reach agreements on key issues. This can result in a lack of progress on important policy matters and can ultimately undermine the legitimacy of the democratic system.

Additionally, some argue that presidential systems can be more prone to corruption and abuse of power. In these systems, the president is often not subject to the same checks and balances as in parliamentary systems, where the head of government is typically responsible to the legislature and can be removed by a vote of no confidence. This can make it more difficult to hold the president accountable for their actions and can create opportunities for corrupt behavior.

There are also concerns about the potential for polarizing politics in presidential systems. In these systems, the president is often seen as representing the interests of their political party rather than those of the country as a whole. This can lead to a lack of consensus and cooperation between the two main political parties, which can further contribute to gridlock and undermine the effectiveness of the democratic system.

However, it is important to note that presidential systems are not inherently more susceptible to democratic decay than other forms of government. Many countries with presidential systems have strong democratic traditions and have been able to maintain these traditions over time. Additionally, there are examples of parliamentary systems that have experienced democratic decay, such as Hungary and Poland, which suggests that other factors, such as the strength of civil society and the rule of law, may be more important in determining the resilience of democracy.

In conclusion, while there are valid concerns about the potential for presidential systems to contribute to democratic decay, it is important to recognize that these systems are not inherently more prone to such decay than other forms of government. The resilience of a democracy depends on a range of factors, including the strength of civil society, the rule of law, and the accountability of those in power. It is up to the citizens of a country to ensure that their democratic institutions and practices are protected and that their leaders are held accountable for their actions.

Presidential systems are a form of government in which the head of state is also the head of government and holds executive power. These systems are characterized by a separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, with the president serving as the chief executive and the head of the executive branch. Many countries worldwide, including the United States, Brazil, and India, have adopted presidential systems of government.

There is an ongoing debate about presidential systems' relative strengths and weaknesses, with some arguing that they are more prone to democratic decay than other forms of government. Democratic decay refers to the erosion or decline of democratic institutions and practices, often due to authoritarian or undemocratic behavior by those in power.

One argument for the susceptibility of presidential systems to democratic decay is that they can lead to a concentration of power in the hands of the president. In these systems, the president is often able to wield significant influence over the executive branch and may have the power to appoint and dismiss key officials, including those in charge of law enforcement and the judiciary. This concentration of power can create opportunities for the president to undermine democratic institutions and practices, particularly if they are not held accountable by other branches of government or by the public.

Another factor that may contribute to democratic decay in presidential systems is the potential for gridlock between the executive and legislative branches. In these systems, the president and the legislature are often elected separately, which can lead to conflicts of interest and a lack of cooperation between the two branches. This can lead to a breakdown in the decision-making process, as the president and legislature may be unable to reach agreements on key issues. This can result in a lack of progress on important policy matters and can ultimately undermine the legitimacy of the democratic system.

Additionally, some argue that presidential systems can be more prone to corruption and abuse of power. In these systems, the president is often not subject to the same checks and balances as in parliamentary systems, where the head of government is typically responsible to the legislature and can be removed by a vote of no confidence. This can make it more difficult to hold the president accountable for their actions and can create opportunities for corrupt behavior.

There are also concerns about the potential for polarizing politics in presidential systems. In these systems, the president is often seen as representing the interests of their political party rather than those of the country as a whole. This can lead to a lack of consensus and cooperation between the two main political parties, which can further contribute to gridlock and undermine the effectiveness of the democratic system.

However, it is important to note that presidential systems are not inherently more susceptible to democratic decay than other forms of government. Many countries with presidential systems have strong democratic traditions and have been able to maintain these traditions over time. Additionally, there are examples of parliamentary systems that have experienced democratic decay, such as Hungary and Poland, which suggests that other factors, such as the strength of civil society and the rule of law, may be more important in determining the resilience of democracy.

In conclusion, while there are valid concerns about the potential for presidential systems to contribute to democratic decay, it is important to recognize that these systems are not inherently more prone to such decay than other forms of government. The resilience of a democracy depends on a range of factors, including the strength of civil society, the rule of law, and the accountability of those in power. It is up to the citizens of a country to ensure that their democratic institutions and practices are protected and that their leaders are held accountable for their actions.

Presidential systems are a form of government in which the head of state is also the head of government and holds executive power. These systems are characterized by a separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, with the president serving as the chief executive and the head of the executive branch. Many countries worldwide, including the United States, Brazil, and India, have adopted presidential systems of government.

There is an ongoing debate about presidential systems' relative strengths and weaknesses, with some arguing that they are more prone to democratic decay than other forms of government. Democratic decay refers to the erosion or decline of democratic institutions and practices, often due to authoritarian or undemocratic behavior by those in power.

One argument for the susceptibility of presidential systems to democratic decay is that they can lead to a concentration of power in the hands of the president. In these systems, the president is often able to wield significant influence over the executive branch and may have the power to appoint and dismiss key officials, including those in charge of law enforcement and the judiciary. This concentration of power can create opportunities for the president to undermine democratic institutions and practices, particularly if they are not held accountable by other branches of government or by the public.

Another factor that may contribute to democratic decay in presidential systems is the potential for gridlock between the executive and legislative branches. In these systems, the president and the legislature are often elected separately, which can lead to conflicts of interest and a lack of cooperation between the two branches. This can lead to a breakdown in the decision-making process, as the president and legislature may be unable to reach agreements on key issues. This can result in a lack of progress on important policy matters and can ultimately undermine the legitimacy of the democratic system.

Additionally, some argue that presidential systems can be more prone to corruption and abuse of power. In these systems, the president is often not subject to the same checks and balances as in parliamentary systems, where the head of government is typically responsible to the legislature and can be removed by a vote of no confidence. This can make it more difficult to hold the president accountable for their actions and can create opportunities for corrupt behavior.

There are also concerns about the potential for polarizing politics in presidential systems. In these systems, the president is often seen as representing the interests of their political party rather than those of the country as a whole. This can lead to a lack of consensus and cooperation between the two main political parties, which can further contribute to gridlock and undermine the effectiveness of the democratic system.

However, it is important to note that presidential systems are not inherently more susceptible to democratic decay than other forms of government. Many countries with presidential systems have strong democratic traditions and have been able to maintain these traditions over time. Additionally, there are examples of parliamentary systems that have experienced democratic decay, such as Hungary and Poland, which suggests that other factors, such as the strength of civil society and the rule of law, may be more important in determining the resilience of democracy.

In conclusion, while there are valid concerns about the potential for presidential systems to contribute to democratic decay, it is important to recognize that these systems are not inherently more prone to such decay than other forms of government. The resilience of a democracy depends on a range of factors, including the strength of civil society, the rule of law, and the accountability of those in power. It is up to the citizens of a country to ensure that their democratic institutions and practices are protected and that their leaders are held accountable for their actions.

Presidential systems are a form of government in which the head of state is also the head of government and holds executive power. These systems are characterized by a separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, with the president serving as the chief executive and the head of the executive branch. Many countries worldwide, including the United States, Brazil, and India, have adopted presidential systems of government.

There is an ongoing debate about presidential systems' relative strengths and weaknesses, with some arguing that they are more prone to democratic decay than other forms of government. Democratic decay refers to the erosion or decline of democratic institutions and practices, often due to authoritarian or undemocratic behavior by those in power.

One argument for the susceptibility of presidential systems to democratic decay is that they can lead to a concentration of power in the hands of the president. In these systems, the president is often able to wield significant influence over the executive branch and may have the power to appoint and dismiss key officials, including those in charge of law enforcement and the judiciary. This concentration of power can create opportunities for the president to undermine democratic institutions and practices, particularly if they are not held accountable by other branches of government or by the public.

Another factor that may contribute to democratic decay in presidential systems is the potential for gridlock between the executive and legislative branches. In these systems, the president and the legislature are often elected separately, which can lead to conflicts of interest and a lack of cooperation between the two branches. This can lead to a breakdown in the decision-making process, as the president and legislature may be unable to reach agreements on key issues. This can result in a lack of progress on important policy matters and can ultimately undermine the legitimacy of the democratic system.

Additionally, some argue that presidential systems can be more prone to corruption and abuse of power. In these systems, the president is often not subject to the same checks and balances as in parliamentary systems, where the head of government is typically responsible to the legislature and can be removed by a vote of no confidence. This can make it more difficult to hold the president accountable for their actions and can create opportunities for corrupt behavior.

There are also concerns about the potential for polarizing politics in presidential systems. In these systems, the president is often seen as representing the interests of their political party rather than those of the country as a whole. This can lead to a lack of consensus and cooperation between the two main political parties, which can further contribute to gridlock and undermine the effectiveness of the democratic system.

However, it is important to note that presidential systems are not inherently more susceptible to democratic decay than other forms of government. Many countries with presidential systems have strong democratic traditions and have been able to maintain these traditions over time. Additionally, there are examples of parliamentary systems that have experienced democratic decay, such as Hungary and Poland, which suggests that other factors, such as the strength of civil society and the rule of law, may be more important in determining the resilience of democracy.

In conclusion, while there are valid concerns about the potential for presidential systems to contribute to democratic decay, it is important to recognize that these systems are not inherently more prone to such decay than other forms of government. The resilience of a democracy depends on a range of factors, including the strength of civil society, the rule of law, and the accountability of those in power. It is up to the citizens of a country to ensure that their democratic institutions and practices are protected and that their leaders are held accountable for their actions.

 

Stuck Looking For A Model Original Answer To This Or Any Other
Question?

Related Questions

In the context of increasing flexibilisation of work, critically assess the opportunities and challenges that individuals are facing in terms of managing the work-nonwork....

In the context of increasing flexibilisation of work, critically assess the opportunities and challenges that individuals are facing in terms of managing the work-nonwork boundary, achieving a healthy work-life-balance, and/or maintaining their health and wellbeing throughout their career.  DRAFT / STUDY TIPS Introduction The flexibilisation of work, driven by technological advancements and changing organizational needs, has profoundly transformed the nature of work for individuals across various industries. This essay critically assesses the opportunities and challenges faced by individuals in managing the work-nonwork boundary, achieving a healthy work-life balance, and maintaining their health and wellbeing in the context of increasing ...
Through the act of collecting sea shells during the 17th century dutch republic, how can it represent the status of power and wealth, reflected in .......

Write a research paper using the research question: Through the act of collecting sea shells during the 17th century dutch republic, how can it represent the status of power and wealth, reflected in the painting "Neptune and Amphitrite" 1610 by Jacob de Gheyn II? ,( ie nautilus cup creation, collecting in curiosity cabinets, reflects a time of status, materialism) DRAFT / STUDY TIPS The Representation of Power and Wealth through Sea Shell Collecting in the 17th Century Dutch Republic: An Analysis of "Neptune and Amphitrite" (1610) by Jacob de Gheyn II Introduction During the 17th century Dutch Republic, a period ...
Are inequalities harmful to the urban economy? Discuss the relationship between capital accumulation or financialisation and urbanisation.

Are inequalities harmful to the urban economy? Discuss the relationship between capital accumulation or financialisation and urbanisation. (unit1/2) Core reading: UN Habitat. Envisaging the Future of Cities. World Cities Report 2022. Nairobi: UN Habitat, 2022. pp. 31-69. https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2022/06/wcr_2022.pdf Yap, Christopher, Camila Cociña, and Caren Levy. ‘The Urban Dimensions of Inequality and Equality’. GOLD VI Working Paper Series #01 (November 2021). Barcelona: United Cities and Local Governments. https://gold.uclg.org/sites/default/files/gold_vi_working_paper_01.pdf Alvaredo, Facundo, Lucas Chancel, Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman, eds. World inequality report 2018. ...
International financial reporting standards set out the requirements and recognition criteria for what is included within the statement of financial position, and.......

Question 1 A) International financial reporting standards set out the requirements and recognition criteria for what is included within the statement of financial position, and the statement of profit and loss and other comprehensive income. Through an analysis and application of international financial reporting standards, critically discuss two examples of transactions and events that are excluded within your organisation’s financial statements. B) For those items that are not included, reflect on ways in which you and your organisation can engage with, and profit from Quattrone’s (2015) approach to decision-making for the unknown. The company that we will focus ...

What Clients Say About Us

Copyright © 2012 - 2024 Apaxresearchers - All Rights Reserved.

WhatsApp us