ABSTRACT
This chapter reviews and critically assesses Juan Linz's arguments about the perils of presidentialism. Although authors mostly agree with several of Linz's criticisms of presidentialism, they disagree with one and argue that presidentialism is less oriented toward winner-take-all results than Westminster parliamentary systems. The authors also argue that the superior record of parliamentary systems has rested partly on where parliamentary government has been implemented, and they claim that presidentialism has some advantages that partially offset its drawbacks. Finally, they asserts that switching from presidentialism to parliamentarism could exacerbate problems of govemability in countries with undisciplined parties. Even if Linz is correct that parliamentary government is more conducive to stable democracy, a great deal rests on what kind of parliamentarism and presidentialism are implemented. Linz's argument is that the style of presidential politics is less favorable to democracy than the style of parliamentary politics. This argument rests in part on his view that presidentialism induces a winner-take-all logic.
