The main area of ​​interest of this article, as indicated by the question, will focus on the advantages of parliamentarism, but due to the ambiguous nature of the democratic process and the different political cleavage that can constitute the electorate, there have been heated debates about which democratic system is most suitable for a sovereign nation to adopt (Schmitter and Lynn 1990). By definition, having an advantage places one in a favorable or superior position compared to another. This, by definition, pushes this essay to espouse the advantages of parliamentarism as opposed to presidentialism. The article will attempt to explain the meaning and structure of parliamentarism, which in turn will allow the essay to examine what advantages and disadvantages it has as opposed to presidentialism. This effort seems to be a simple task, but when you take into consideration the various forms of Westminster-style parliaments promoted in sovereign countries such as Canada, Australia, Germany, Ireland and New Zealand, among others. The semi-presidential system of Finland and the French fifth republic. The presidential system of the United States and the various manifestations of the American-style presidential system adopted throughout Latin America. Suddenly this task becomes a much larger undertaking, and it would be beyond the scope of this article to extensively examine and compare each individual representative manifestation. So, for the purposes of this essay, the arguments advanced will clarify, using the most rigorous understanding, what the democratic systems of parliamentarism and presidentialism belong to. As underlined, the main objective of this paper will seek to show the advantages of parliamentarism as opposed to presidentialism. . In order… halfway through the document… it promises to create democratic stability, or even make better and more insightful decisions than their presidential counterparts, but states that “the vast majority of stable democracies in the world today are parliamentary regimes” (Linz 1989, p.52) Using this hypostasis, I have constructed the essay in a way that hopefully shows the advantages of imperfect systems of parliamentarianism over presidentialism. Of course, mainly due to the restrictions on the number of words, the document is not a comprehensive examination of different democratic environments and is very open to debate, but by adopting this approach of loosely contrasting parliamentarism and presidentialism, I have attempted to show the inherent flexibility and advantages of parliamentarism it allows for a more pluralistic, politically balanced and stable approach to the democratic process.