Parliamentary governmental systems and the applicability of the parliamentary system in Afghanistan

In recent years, within the context of comparative politics, several academic works have been published on the explanation of the best form of governmental system in terms of democracy and stability, and there has been debate about whether a parliamentary system is more appropriate than a presidential system. However, this paper investigates, rather than discussing which system of government is the best or not, the issue of which system is more appropriate in terms of social, cultural and historical conditions of Afghanistan. Since 2001 debate over a change of presidential system in Afghanistan stem from the fact that it is in a democratic transition period, the presidential system is not participatory and inclusive, and the country has faced many crises as well as concerns such as the shift towards authoritarianism. Indeed, considering the practices and experiences of the presidential system, these concerns have a high rightfulness. This paper examines the claim that the parliamentary system is more appropriate than a presidential system in terms of institutional features, democratic stability, coexistence, good governance and democracy. While making this determination, the applicability of the parliamentary system in Afghanistan was put forward by drawing conclusions from the practices of the countries governed by parliamentary systems. Therefore, the applicability of the parliamentary system in Afghanistan as an alternative model to the presidential system has been tried to be determined in the light of the findings of this study.