As contrasted to the presidential system of government, the cabinet or parliamentary system has the following advantages and merits:
It secures harmony between the executive and the legislature.
As all the members of the cabinet are also the members of the parliament, there is a close collaboration and intimate interdependence between the executive and legislative branches of the government. The ministers participate in all the debates, discussions and decisions of the legislature, and are responsible to it. They are supervised and guided by its opinion and hold office during its confidence. ‘From first to last”, writs Ciarner, “there is full and harmonious collaboration between the law-making and money-granting authorities, on the one hand, and the law-enforcing and money-spending authorities, on the other.”
Consequently, there is no working at cross purposes and rarely any deadlock between the executive iind the legislature, as in the presidential system. Instead of that, there is a unity of purpose and harmony between them This system leads to good administration, based in good laws, because the ministers introduce and get passed only such laws as are really necessary and are, therefore, executed with confidence and promptitude. Indeed, the close harmony between the mbinet and parliament gives this system of government the merits of promptitude, efficiency and confidence in its actions and policies.
It ensures responsibility and checks autocracy.
The chief merit of the cabinet system is a responsible form of government. It ensures the responsibility of those who govern to those who ire governed. This responsibility is firstly and directly to the members of parliament, the representatives of the people and, in the second instance and Indirectly, to the people themselves. The ministers are constantly criticised Hy the members of the parliament, especially by those of the opposition. Hence it is impossible for an irresponsible ministry to hold office for long.
resigns as soon as it loses the confidence of the majority in the legislature. It also prevents the rule by an autocratic government, as such a government will be opposed by the parliament and will not be elected again to the office hy the people. For this purpose, the parliament and the people need not wait fin the expiry of the term of office, as is the case in the presidential system, which an autocratic and irresponsible president cannot be turned out of nflice till the end of his term. Cabinet system ensures immediate and |Mnmpt responsibility of the cabinet to the parliament and in the end to the paople.
It has flexibility and elasticity in times of crises.
As pointed out by Bagehot, the cabinet system has the merit of flpMbility and elasticity in times of crises and national emergency, because #ir change in ministry can be brought about peacefully and constitutionally to meet the crisis. The people, says Bagehot, can “choose a ruler for the occasion” to lead the nation through the crisis. This fact was demonstrated in England during the World War I by the choice of Lloyd George, and during the World War JI by the choice of Churchill. This is a great merit when compared with that of the presidential system where no such quick change is possible, as the president is elected for a fixed term of office.
It is governed by the able men
In the cabinet system, the ministers are selected from among the members of the legislature where they have a long, even lifelong, experience of parliamentary work and criticism. Every cabinet includes several persons who have served in the previous cabinets. The prime minister is careful to pick and choose only such men from his party and supporters who are men of experience, skill and talents both in parliamentary and in executive or administrative work.
In the Presidential system, however, the President selects men from wherever he likes. Many of them do not even belong to politics and administration but to commerce, industry or finance. The average American Cabinet, says Laski, rarely represents anything, whereas the average member of an English cabinet “has been tried and tested over a long period in the public view.” He therefore knows his task better and can fulfil his duties best. The American ministers and presidents are like meteors: they shoot across the political firmament of their country for a brief span of four or five years and then vanish for evdr into political darkness or nonentity. Here also the cabinet system has the advantage of utilising the talents of able men again and again, while the presidential system can utilise the skill of a talented man, if it at all finds one, only once or at the most twice, which shows its wastefulness.
It has a great educative value.
The intimate collaboration between the cabinet and the parliament requires such qualities from their members as tact, leadership, power of public speech, intelligence and knowledge. Constant criticism and opposition to the ruling party requires not only discipline in party ranks but also vigilance among them. The elections make it necessary that both the ruling and oppositions parties keep the electorate informed of their points of view. Thus the cabinet system has a great educative value both for the governors and the governed, the leaders and tha led.