Abstract

Existing literature on system type and regime stability often overlooks semi-presidential systems. When they are mentioned, semi-presidential systems are classified as inherently flawed. This paper tries to ascertain the effect of semi-presidential systems as compared to other system types on regime stability using a qualitative case studies approach. This paper uses case studies to highlight the effect of the powers of presidents in a semi-presidential system on the flexibility of semi-presidential systems in political conflict. True to my expectations, this paper finds that according to case studies, presidential systems are the least stable system type. This paper also finds that parliamentary systems are the most stable system type, followed by semi-presidential systems. This paper argue that semi- presidential systems are the most flexible system type, because the division of mandate affords the president a greater range of options when faced with gridlock. This paper theorizes that this flexibility leads to greater regime stability. This paper proposes that the in some circumstances, the semi-presidential system can be more stable than parliamentary systems. This is especially true of parliamentary systems that are experiencing high levels of political fractionalization.

How to Cite