parliamentary system

The functioning of the parliament in democratic governments on the one hand and the relationship between the executive and legislative powers in this system on the other hand plays a prominent role and it also raises the merit of responsiveness of the bureaucratic system to elected political representatives andparliamentarians. The main question of the article is that according to the status effectiveness of the islamic council in the sixth and seventh periods, which of the presidential and parliamentary models was iran,s political system close to? In this reseach work, three variables of legislative function, supervisory function, function of the parliament and relationship of the parliament with other political institutions have been studied and analyzed using archived information and qualitative research method. The result suggests that the role and influence of the islamic council as an independent authority has decreased and iran,s political system is close to the presidential system, which has been an increasing trend.

Article 87 of the 1358 Constitution made the prime minister responsible for forming the Council of Ministers and obtaining a vote of confidence from parliament. After the approval of Article 1 of “the law on adding articles to the code of procedure of the parliament about requesting the vote of confidence and the manner of holding it” in 1363/ 5/9, the prime minister was obliged to request a vote of confidence from the parliament both at the beginning of each term of the parliament and in the conditions stipulated in Article 87, after the formation and introduction of the Council of Ministers. In addition, the Council of Ministers was formed based on political will of parliamentary majority. This indicates that the vote of confidence to the ministers follows the parliamentary logic of the political system. After 1368 revision of the Constitution, president made responsible to obtain a vote of confidence for the Council of Ministers after being formed. By stating that “with the change of the parliament new vote of confidence will not be necessary” in Article 133 and removing the post of prime minister, the political system approaches the presidential system. The practical procedure of vote of confidence, after the revision of the Constitution, also confirms the adherence to the logic of the presidential system.

Political transition which rooted in ancient culture is a concept that has become very important in the age of modernity. The transition of political systems in the form of democracy is justifiable and its perpetrators also benefit from the political experiences of developed civilizations. The transition is important in saving a society that has not functioned properly from the ruling political system. The theory of the transition from a presidential to a parliamentary political system has also raised the issue. In fact, describing transition in the Iranian political system requires understanding the desired inefficiency of a system against a system that has not yet been fully experienced in the Islamic Republic. Therefore, in this study, we examined the transition from the presidential system to the parliamentary system in order to explain the possibility of this by analyzing the political theories of the transition and measuring the theory of the transition to parliamentarism. Our main issue has been how to experience the transition from the current political system of Iran to parliamentarism. The result is based on the loss of power from individuals and the division of power between political groups and parties, which only in this case a transition is possible. The research method is descriptive-analytical.

Presidential, parliamentary, and semi-presidential political systems are rooted in the sovereignty of the nation and the public will of society, and through the balance of power and the control of power by power, seek to prevent the concentration of power. Although all of these systems are based on the will of the nation through elections, they are different in method and tools. This descriptive-analytical study seeks to answer the question of whether it is possible to achieve a parliamentary system in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The research findings suggest that its realization is faced with obstacles of nature and form. Its essential difference goes back to the tact that the Iranian political system is based on religious teachings, and Western political systems are based on the humanist attitude. Proportional and structural barriers go back to the constitution, so there is no possibility of a parliamentary system in Iran.

Presidential, parliamentary, and semi-presidential political systems are rooted in the sovereignty of the nation and the general will of the community and seek to prevent the concentration of power through the balance of power and the containment of power by the power. Although all of these systems are based on the will of the nation through elections, they differ in method and means. This descriptive-analytical study seeks to answer the question whether there is a possibility of a parliamentary system in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The findings of the study suggest that its realization is subject to obstacles of both nature and form. The essential difference is that the political system of Iran is based on religious teachings and the western political systems are based on humanistic attitudes.

From the time that it took political authority in Turkey, the AKP constantly raised the issue of changing Turkey's political system from the parliamentary to the presidential system. Under Erdogan's leadership, after the coup in April 15, 2016, the party was able to reach its goal thanks to the political support of parties and social accompaniment through 2017's referendum. The purpose of this article is to examine the President's powers as the head of state and the relationship between the president and the legislative and judiciary forces as well as to criticize and evaluate these changes. In this regard, it has been dealt with the changes in the constitutional material, specifically those that are related to the executive body, through a comparative study comparing the new and previous constitution in order to examine the types of political regimes based on the key concept of the separation theory, and explain the Legal and political consequences. The present paper seeks to find out how much the President's powers in the new constitution have changed in Turkey and to which model of political systems the Turkish political system has been approached? The claim of this article is that with the increase of the powers of the Turkish presidential powers, the Turkish system is approaching the presidential system. The findings of this paper, which have been found analytically and descriptively through a documentary method, show that the constitutional changes increase the powers and scope of the president's authority. This may destabilize the border of the separation of powers in Turkey's new political system. The documents of this claim show the increase in mutual eligibility of the President in dissolving the parliament and holding early elections, holding the parliamentary and presidential elections simultaneously, the extension of the term of parliamentary and presidency periods, the president's ability to be the secretary-general of the party during the presidential period, the authority to select the majority of the members of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors, as well as the Constitutional Court and the election of senior government officials without parliamentary approval, and the tightening the process of monitoring the ministers.

Given the fact that each country is of various cultural conditions and a historical background, countries of the world have their own systems of government. In countries with the separation of powers, the election of the executives is usually held through the votes cast by people. In parliamentary systems, it is the legislative power that elect
the executives and controls them. The present system of government in the Islamic Republic of Iran as both a semi-parliamentary and semi-presidential system which started to work after the revision of the Constitution in 1368, like any other existing governmental structures, has revealed its points of weakness and strength since it was established about three decades ago. Therefore, given the fact that the existing semi-presidential and semi-parliamentary system has faced with some difficulties, the question of its becoming a parliamentary system has changed into a controversial question for the authorities for several years. Some hold the view that acting on the existing laws and
regulations and reforms of personal behaviors can be taken as the cause of overcoming difficulties. Others consider structural change and movement towards establishing a parliamentary system as something desirable. In this article, an attempt is made to cast light on and make analysis of the characteristics of a parliamentary system by referring to
the arguments offered by the advocates and opponents of such a system. While stating the pathologies and obstacles of this shift of position, the article also seeks to establish the fact that this change brings about the homogeneity of the structure of the system and balance of power in a more appropriate way.

In this study, the existence and activities of political parties as a precondition for the establishment and activities of the parliamentary system in Iran has been examined. We have tried to explain the non-compliance between the statue and the role of political parties in Parliamentary systems in the Islamic Republic of Iran. In a parliamentary system, partisanship, resulting from the principle of diversity and conflict of ideas, is thought to have reached its highest order, so that the party apparatus and the government are fully integrated.In a parliamentary system, the formation, continuation, and survival of the government, and  also the political balance in the community, are possible through the competition between political parties. Therefore, currently, the lack of strong and disciplined political parties in the Islamic Republic of Iran is considered as one of the significant limitations of converting our legal and political structure into a parliamentary system.

Despite the variation in political systems (parliamentary, presidential...), the executive branch is regarded to be in charge of foreign policy. The IRI Constitution has failed to draw a clear line between the limits of authority and the jurisdictions of legislature and executive in respect to decision-making and law-making in the realm of foreign policy, and led to often contradictory interpretations, although it is committed to the principle of Separation of Powers. This article aims to illustrate some of the causes for this constitutional ambiguity. Relying on the interpretation of some articles, it also emphasizes the need for a new constitutional interpretation concerning foreign policy which is based on the principle of efficiency and consists in features such as decrease in the number of institutions responsible for foreign policy and their concentrations in executive on the one hand, and parliamentary control over executive using legal instruments like hearing and inquiry on the other.