Become a Member for $9.99/month

If Việt Nam were to transition into a democracy, it would face an important choice regarding its governmental model. Should it adopt a parliamentary democracy, akin to Japan or Germany, where the parliamentary majority selects the prime minister? Alternatively, it could implement a presidential system similar to the United States, where the electorate votes for a president who acts simultaneously as head of state and head of government.

Equally important is the design of the electoral system itself. The challenge lies in creating a framework that prevents one or two parties from monopolizing power without causing excessive political fragmentation through a proliferation of small parties.

Examining the constitutional models and electoral systems of nations with advanced governance provides valuable insights to answer these questions.

Evaluating Political Effectiveness

The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) provides a framework to evaluate public governance quality across more than 200 countries and territories. Of its various metrics, five specific indicators clearly reflect institutional quality and government effectiveness: [1]

Voice and Accountability: Measures the true ability of citizens to express their views, participate politically, and elect their representatives.

Government Effectiveness: Evaluates the capacity of the state to deliver public services and execute policies.

Regulatory Quality: Analyzes the effectiveness and transparency of the legal and regulatory frameworks.

Rule of Law: Assesses the enforcement of laws, the upholding of contracts, and the equitable application of the law to all citizens.

Control of Corruption: Gauges the prevention of public power abuse for private gain.

Comparing Political Models

A total of 22 countries rank highly across these five indicators, organized from the highest to the lowest overall score. [2]

The following data comprehensively outlines each nation's electoral system, legislative election rules, the number of effective parliamentary parties, and its form of government—specifically, the dynamic between the executive and legislative branches.

In the case of parliamentary democracies with bicameral legislatures—namely Germany, Japan, Canada, and Australia—the information focuses on the lower house. This chamber acts as the more powerful legislative body and holds the decisive authority to form or dismiss the government.

Country Electoral System Legislative Election Rules Number of Effective Political Parties Executive–legislative Relationship Denmark Proportional PR (Proportional Representation) 7.24 Parliamentary Finland Proportional PR 5.56 Parliamentary Switzerland Proportional PR in large cantons; SMP in small cantons 5.13 Complex Luxembourg Proportional PR 4.43 Parliamentary Norway Proportional PR 5.56 Parliamentary New Zealand Mixed / Proportional MMP: SMP + PR 3.81 Parliamentary Sweden Proportional PR 5.18 Parliamentary Netherlands Proportional PR 7.03 Parliamentary Singapore Majoritarian SMP + PBV (block vote) 1.24 Parliamentary Australia Majoritarian AV (Alternative Vote) 3.15 Parliamentary Liechtenstein Proportional PR 2.93 Parliamentary Ireland Proportional STV (Single Transferable Vote) 5.48 Parliamentary Canada Majoritarian SMP 2.36 Parliamentary Iceland Proportional PR 5.43 Parliamentary Germany Mixed / Proportional MMP: SMP + PR 4.84 Parliamentary Japan Mixed Parallel SMP and PR 3.52 Parliamentary Austria Proportional PR 4.13 Semi-presidential Estonia Proportional PR 4.52 Parliamentary United Kingdom Majoritarian SMP 2.24 Parliamentary Taiwan Mixed Parallel SMP and PR 2.38 Semi-presidential Belgium Proportional PR 9.23 Parliamentary United States Majoritarian SMP 2.00 Presidential

The list of countries above reflects those that score highly on the World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators in 2023. Data on the “number of effective parliamentary parties” is drawn from Michael Gallagher (2025), Election Indices Dataset. Information on political systems is taken from the Inter-Parliamentary Union’s Parline database.

Electoral Systems and Methods

Worldwide, democratic elections primarily utilize three major systems: majoritarian, proportional, and mixed.

The Majoritarian System

This system focuses on electing the candidate who secures the most votes within a specific electoral district. It encompasses the following methods: [3]

Single Member Plurality (SMP): The most prevalent majoritarian method, where each district elects a single representative. The candidate with the most votes (a plurality) wins. Consequently, a candidate might secure only 35 percent of the vote but still win if they outpace all rivals. Often termed “First Past the Post” (FPTP), it is utilized in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada.

Plurality Block Vote (PBV): Applied in multi-seat districts, this method awards all available seats to the group of candidates that receives the highest number of votes. Singapore employs this system.

Alternative Vote (AV): A preferential system for single-member districts where voters rank candidates numerically. If no candidate secures an absolute majority initially, votes are redistributed in successive rounds until a definitive winner emerges. [4] AV is used for the Australian House of Representatives, while a similar method, Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), is used in American states like Maine and Alaska.

A sample ballot used in Canada’s federal parliamentary elections includes the candidate’s name and party in both English and French. Voters mark an “X” in the box beside their chosen candidate. Source: CityNews Vancouver .

2。The Proportional System

This system distributes parliamentary seats based on the percentage of votes each political party acquires.

Proportional Representation (PR): Seats are allocated in direct proportion to a party's vote share. For instance, securing 30 percent of the national vote results in an allocation of 30 percent of parliamentary seats. [5]

Single Transferable Vote (STV): Similar to AV, voters rank candidates by preference, but this method is implemented in multi-member districts. [6] Ireland currently uses STV to elect its lower house.

A sample ballot from Ireland shows the use of the Single Transferable Vote system. Each district elects multiple representatives. Candidate information on the ballot includes name, portrait, party affiliation, party symbol, address, and occupation. Voters rank candidates by writing numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) in the boxes beside each name. Source: Trinity College Dublin .

3。The Mixed System

Mixed systems integrate elements of both majoritarian and proportional frameworks.

Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP): This method blends single-member plurality with proportional representation, utilizing a compensatory mechanism to maintain overall proportionality. Germany and New Zealand use MMP.

Parallel System: This framework runs SMP and PR concurrently but independently, lacking a compensatory link between the two. It is implemented in Japan and Taiwan.

Electoral Systems and Party Structures

Countries demonstrating strong public governance predominantly rely on proportional representation. By ensuring the distribution of parliamentary seats closely mirrors the popular vote, this system enables multiple parties to participate, thereby promoting political diversity and balanced power dynamics.

Conversely, majoritarian electoral methods inherently exaggerate the strength of large political parties.

This distortion was clearly evident during the 2024 United Kingdom general election, widely described by observers as the most distorted in modern British history. Under the Single Member Plurality system, the Labour Party secured 411 of the 650 House of Commons seats (63 percent), despite capturing only about 34 percent of the national vote. Furthermore, the “winner-takes-all” nature of SMP generates a massive volume of “wasted votes”—ballots cast for unsuccessful candidates.

Proportional systems, however, translate vote shares directly into seats, ensuring almost every vote impacts the outcome. This reinforces voter representation and typically results in higher voter turnout.

In OECD countries, voter turnout in proportional representation systems is generally higher than in countries using the First Past the Post method (which is the same as SMP). Source: Fairvote.ca .

Proportional systems, however, translate vote shares directly into seats, ensuring almost every vote impacts the outcome. This reinforces voter representation and typically results in higher voter turnout.

It is important to note that not all proportional representation frameworks are purely proportional; some are mixed. Germany and New Zealand utilize the Mixed-Member Proportional model for their lower houses, blending single-member plurality with proportional allocation. Because it includes a compensatory mechanism to align seat distribution with overall vote shares, MMP functions essentially as a proportional system. In contrast, Japan and Taiwan operate parallel systems where SMP and PR function independently, lacking any compensatory mechanism to guarantee proportionality.

Advanced democracies favor highly representative systems—purely proportional or mixed—to accurately reflect voter diversity.

Measuring Political Fragmentation

The “number of effective parliamentary parties” index (in the prior table) is an important metric for evaluating political fragmentation. Rather than simply counting the parties in parliament, this index weighs seat distribution to calculate how many parties genuinely possess the capacity to influence public policy.

Index approaching 1: Indicates a system dominated by a single party, typical of one-party regimes where the parliament merely formalizes the ruling party's decisions.

Index exceptionally high: Indicates a highly fragmented parliament, which severely complicates coalition formation and policy negotiation.

Index between 4 and 6: The typical range for the 22 advanced nations analyzed. This reflects a healthy, pluralistic system where multiple parties can voice concerns and check each other's power.

Consequently, the electoral system definitively dictates the number of effective parties:

Proportional Representation: Fosters a higher number of effective parties (e.g., Denmark, the Netherlands, Finland, Norway, and Belgium).

Majoritarian Systems (SMP, PBV, AV): Concentrates power among a select few major parties (e.g., Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the United States).

Mixed Systems: Models with compensatory mechanisms (Germany, New Zealand) yield more effective parties than those operating parallel, independent components (Japan, Taiwan).

Electoral systems, therefore, directly engineer both the quantity of political parties and the competitive landscape of the government.

Is Parliamentary Government the Foundation of Effective Governance?

A review of constitutional designs reveals that most nations scoring highly on the Worldwide Governance Indicators utilize parliamentary systems. This strong correlation suggests that parliamentary frameworks inherently foster effective governance.

Even outliers often operate like parliamentary systems in practice. For instance, while Austria and Taiwan are classified as semi-presidential, Austria’s directly elected president functions largely in a ceremonial capacity, despite holding constitutional powers to appoint the prime minister and dissolve parliament. The true executive power rests with the prime minister, who is typically the leader of the largest parliamentary party or a majority coalition.

Why, then, do top-ranked nations predominantly favor parliamentary systems?

The primary advantage is the “fusion of powers.” In a parliamentary system, the executive government (the prime minister and cabinet) is drawn directly from the legislature. Because the prime minister usually leads the majority party, this close relationship mitigates political gridlock, allowing for smoother policy advancement, legislative passage, and the implementation of campaign promises. Furthermore, parliamentary systems are highly responsive; if a government proves ineffective, parliament can issue a vote of no confidence to replace it immediately, rather than waiting for an electoral term to expire.

Conversely, presidential systems elect the executive and legislative branches separately. This separation of powers enforces checks and balances, but it also elevates the risk of legislative stalemate—particularly under a divided government. Furthermore, if a president governs poorly, the electorate has no recourse but to wait for the next scheduled election, which is often years away.

In their study Are Parliamentary Systems Better?, researchers John Gerring, Strom Thacker, and Carola Moreno analyzed global democratic data and concluded that parliamentary systems consistently outperform presidential ones across multiple development indicators. [7] Key findings associated with parliamentary systems include:

Higher per-capita incomes and trade openness.

Superior investment ratings and telecommunications infrastructure.

Lower infant mortality rates and higher life expectancy in established democracies.

This study emphasizes correlation over definitive causation, yet it provides an essential framework for nations contemplating institutional reforms, such as Việt Nam.

For a nation like Việt Nam, transitioning from a prolonged period of authoritarian, single-party rule to a democracy presents the immense challenge of building a viable political opposition. In this context, parliamentary systems are significantly more conducive to developing a robust multi-party landscape. Because forming a government requires either an outright parliamentary majority or a negotiated coalition, political parties are forced to organize efficiently and articulate clear policy platforms to attract voters.

In presidential systems, candidates can bypass strong party apparatuses to campaign directly to the national electorate, and they may appoint cabinets based on personal preference rather than legislative consensus. This dynamic frequently results in weaker party systems and highly personalized, individualistic leadership.

Combining a parliamentary government with a proportional electoral system appears to be the most effective blueprint for strong governance—a crucial insight for shaping the future institutions of a democratic Việt Nam.

Exploring Global Political Systems Using AI

With the advent of artificial intelligence tools such as Gemini, ChatGPT, Grok, and DeepSeek, readers now possess the ability to easily investigate the political frameworks of Việt Nam and nations worldwide. To foster critical thinking, enhance analytical skills, and encourage independent fact-checking, readers are invited to explore the following political science inquiries using AI:

Measuring Party Influence: How is the effective number of parliamentary parties (ENPP) mathematically calculated in political science, and what index value is considered optimal for a stable, balanced political system?

Preferential Voting Distinctions: Both the Alternative Vote (AV) and the Single Transferable Vote (STV) utilize ranked-choice ballots. Why, then, is AV categorized as a majoritarian system while STV is deemed proportional?

Classifying Mixed Systems: Germany and New Zealand employ the Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) system, blending direct district elections with proportional seat allocations. Why is MMP still fundamentally classified as a proportional system despite its mixed nature?

Parallel vs. Compensatory Mechanisms: Japan’s House of Representatives and Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan utilize both SMP and PR mechanisms. How does their specific mixed system diverge from those in Germany and New Zealand, and how does this variance impact legislative party fragmentation?

In the May 2025 parliamentary election in Singapore, the People’s Action Party won a landslide victory with 87 of 97 seats in parliament, making party leader Lawrence Wong prime minister. Source: Asia One .

The Singaporean Model: Beyond the People’s Action Party (PAP), what other political factions operate in Singapore? How has Singapore maintained a multi-party status despite the PAP governing continuously since 1959? [8] Furthermore, does the nation's electoral design inherently advantage the ruling party?

Governance Anomalies: Singapore is a unique outlier in the Worldwide Governance Indicators. Why does it achieve world-leading scores in Government Effectiveness and Regulatory Quality, yet register a negative score in Voice and Accountability?

Constitutional Theory vs. Practice: Austria’s constitution empowers a directly elected president to dissolve parliament and dismiss the prime minister. Why does political science still classify Austria's functional reality as a parliamentary system rather than a semi-presidential one?

Evaluating Việt Nam: Within the Worldwide Governance Indicators, what are Việt Nam’s highest- and lowest-performing metrics? How does the overall quality of its public governance compare to its Southeast Asian neighbors?

A comparison of the Worldwide Governance Indicators between Singapore and Việt Nam in 2023 shows the relative ranking of each country across governance criteria. The percentile ranking (0–100) represents a country’s position compared with all countries worldwide, where 0 is the lowest and 100 is the highest. Việt Nam’s Voice and Accountability score stands at 15.2%, meaning it is far below the global average, with roughly 85% of countries scoring higher. Source: World Bank – Worldwide Governance Indicators .

Mixing a parliamentary government with a proportional electoral system seems to be the best way to ensure strong governance, which is an important idea for building the future democratic institutions of Việt Nam.

Hoàng Dạ Lan wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on Nov. 19, 2025. Đàm Vĩnh Hằng translated it into English for The Vietnamese Magazine.

References: +

1. The indicator Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism is not included in the author’s analysis because it does not directly reflect the quality of public governance. Many countries achieve high scores on this indicator primarily through strict control measures and restrictions on political and civil freedoms, such as Laos, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

2. The table lists 22 countries with the highest combined scores across the five criteria of the Worldwide Governance Indicators, serving only as a reference list. However, in academic research, aggregating these criteria to produce a single ranking of governance quality is not appropriate because each indicator measures a different dimension of governance.

3. Majoritarian electoral systems include both plurality systems and majority systems. Plurality systems select the winner based on the highest number of votes without requiring an absolute majority. Common forms include Single Member Plurality (SMP) and Plurality Block Vote (PBV). By contrast, majority systems require a candidate to obtain more than 50% of the vote to win. These include the Two-Round System, used in France, and the Alternative Vote (AV), used for elections to the Australian House of Representatives.

4. See this YouTube video explaining the Alternative Vote (AV): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHRPMJmzBBw&ab_channel=FairVote

5. Proportional Representation (PR) reflects the vote share of political parties when allocating seats in the legislature. Common forms include Closed-list PR, Open-list PR, and Free-list PR.

6. See this YouTube video explaining the Single Transferable Vote (STV): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfoUCuy0Snk&ab_channel=TheHighlandCouncil

7. Gerring, J., Thacker, S. C., & Moreno, C. (2009). Are parliamentary systems better?. Comparative political studies, 42 (3), 327-359.

8. Han, K. (2020, July 10). Cơ chế bầu cử độc nhất vô nhị của Singapore. Luật Khoa tạp chí . https://luatkhoa.com/2020/07/co-che-bau-cu-doc-nhat-vo-nhi-cua-singapore/