The Most Democratic Country

Which country is the most democratic country in the world? Is a President better than Prime Minister or not? How important is a written constitution, an elected Senate, or the electoral system? All the consolidated democracies of the North share the notion of fundamental rights of citizens and are accountable through elections, but institutional differences do make some countries more representative than others. A federalist country with a parliamentary system, a written constitution, an independent court, and a representative electoral system will be best able to represent its citizens and thus be one on the most democratic countries of the North.

The Northern states have two elements in common: civil liberties and democratic procedures. Liberties, like freedom of religion, expression, assembly, and association, are a fundamental right of citizens in the North that provide for the open communication and protection of individuals. Northern governments recognize and generally respect such rights which provide open communication and protection of individuals, even though governments sometimes restrict freedoms, like the USA's Patriot Act. Together with freedoms, democratic societies respect the rule of law, hold free and open elections, and have at least some separation of powers.

The parliamentary and presidential systems, found right across the Northern State, or sometimes on combination, allow citizens to elect a legislative and executive branch. The presidential system disperses power between the executive and the legislative branches and requires a substantial amount of cooperation to pass laws, even when the same party controls both branches. Each branch typically leads a particular policy area, for example in the US the Congress concentrates on domestic policy, where the president focuses on foreign affairs. However, in this example, Congress must approve the budget for presidential policy, and thus provides a case-by-case examination of the executive branch. For citizens, this means greater accountability and representation, but sometimes compromises between branches can result in gridlock or slow and inadequate responses to pressing problems. The presidential system is designed to prevent any particular branch from abusing its power, but this can lead some voters to disengage with the political process; clear separation of powers coupled with a restrictive two party system, in the case of the US, can lead voters to question the value of their vote and allow decision to be made in the squabbling between branches.

The parliamentary system has many similarities with the presidential system, but the biggest difference comes from the election of the executive; in parliamentary systems the leader of the executive is also the leader of the legislature. The Prime Minister chooses a cabinet from members of the legislature and has ultimate control over all policy areas. This allows the executive a freer hand to deal with problems of the day and minimizes the unresponsiveness associated with the presidential system. But this concentration of power can be problematic, especially when the government has a majority. As long as the PM can maintain party discipline and escape a non-confidence vote, then he or she can centralize power and reduce the legislative process to Ð''rubber stamping' executive proposals. Blair's entry into the Iraq war did not even pass through the House of Commons, but was made with a handful of cabinet ministers and top bureaucrats (Kettle 2006, 79). Thus, in contrast to the clear separation of powers in the presidential system, the parliamentary system is more open to abuses of authority. But the parliamentary system of Australia has borrows from the US important elements to minimize abuses, like a written constitution, a High Court with judicial review, and an accountable Senate with power to block the Lower House. Such a system provides a balance with checks and balances on one hand, and a reasonable rate of responsiveness on the other.

It is important to note that both of these systems have advantages and disadvantages, but that the main indicator for determining which is more democratic comes from voter turnout. While the presidential system may not inspire voters into action, it does have checks in place to prevent the government from getting too far away from citizens demands. However, if citizens did become politically active on a large scale, the presidential system, with its limited responsiveness, may not be able to accommodate the diverse and pressing issues at hand. Essentially, the system could quickly become a fetter as citizens try to realize their demands. Conversely, the parliamentary system benefits from increases in participation, as it is able to respond accordingly. However, as voter turnout declines, less support is being garnered for an increasingly powerful PM. The German system has been able to address some of these issues.

Germany's upper house, the Bundtsrat, is a particularly democratic check on the Lower house and the executive.

Mixed member proportional (MMP) representation provides the most responsive system for a government to best implement the demands of its citizens. Simple majority pluralirty, used in countries