One of the most important Decision of the transition process Out standing is deciding for the kind of Government, either Presidential or Parliamentary or a Mixture of Both

As the political reform process  develops and move forward one of the main topic of concern is the question presidential versus parliamentary form of government. So it is important to find a theoretical understanding of the aspects of those two governments to find a fit for Maldives.

In many cases historical context and factor have had a decisive influence on whether a country chooses a parliamentary or a presidential system or some “Gaullist” mixture of the two. For example, former French colonies influenced by the French experience and tradition have invariably chosen presidential systems. In contrast, many former British colonies have followed the Westminster model and chosen parliamentary forms of government. In many developing countries like Maldives, the particular model selected can have an important bearing on the nature and quality of democracy. There is an unresolved debate in the political science literature as to which of the two forms parliamentary or presidential is more democratic, especially in

The third world context. Typically, the presidential model has often led to more centralized control. The American type of checks and balances between the three branches of government are usually absent in these countries. Even when the constitution makes provision for such balances, weak institutions and the political culture reduces the impact of such provisions.

As a result in many cases a centralized executive has led to abuses of power and undermining of democracy. For example, over the years, many Latin American presidential governments have displayed these characteristics. However, this does not mean that parliamentary systems that started off as democracies have not produced their own quota of authoritarian tendencies.

as to which of the two systems presidential or parliamentary is more conducive to the fostering of democracy in the developing countries like Maldives the answer most likely depends on a complex of determining factors including historical roots of the system, political culture, the socio-economic environment and not simply on the formal features of the two systems alone.

When discussing government stability it is important to distinguish between Parliamentary systems and presidential systems. One of the most fundamental characteristics of a presidential form of government is that the president acts as the leader of the executive. For presidential democracies a change in government occurs when the president changes whereas for parliamentary systems the Prime Minister is the relevant actor. There are also a small number of countries that make use of systems that fall in between these two categories. Such systems are generally referred to as “semi- presidential”. For example Finland, and our neighbouring Sri Lanka. For these systems, the Prime Minister is considered to be the leader of the executive, since the government but not the president can be overthrown by a parliamentary vote of no confidence

Parliamentary systems are more likely, ceteris paribus, than presidential systems to give politicians the incentive to provide policies aimed at broad national constituencies rather than at particularistic sectoral or regional constituencies, because a parliamentary constitutional design encourages legislators to subordinate their pursuits to their parties' broader interests. However, less-developed countries often lack the conditions for the nationally oriented parties that parliamentary require in order thriving, due to such factors as sharp disparities in development across regions and income groups. Thus the provision of collective goods in such countries may be facilitated by the establishment of presidential executives, which can be delegated independent constitutional authority to structure the national policy process. Policy-making in these cases thus can be stylized as a presidency elected nationally and granted strong powers over legislation that partially counteract the particularistic tendencies of a fragmented legislature whose members remain close to their regional constituencies