The main advantage of the parliamentary form of government is that

States the executive is part of the legislature and both are interdependent, indicating lack of independence between the two organs.

A student could compare this rule to constitutions or practices of specific countries to see whether ministers are drawn from the legislature to test independence.

Contrasts parliamentary (based on cooperation/coordination) with presidential (based on separation of powers), giving a general rule about relations between executive and legislature.

One could use this rule to classify a given country's system by checking for constitutional clauses creating ministerial responsibility to the legislature.

Defines parliamentary government as one in which the executive is responsible to the legislature—implying dependence rather than independence.

A student might inspect whether the executive can remain in office without legislative confidence in a given country to evaluate independence.

Explicitly states there is a fusion of powers in the parliamentary system and that legislature and executive are 'together and inseparable.'

Use this pattern to check if the cabinet leads both legislature and executive in practice (e.g., prime ministerial leadership) to infer non‑independence.

Says in a parliamentary system executive and legislature are interdependent: the legislature controls the executive and is in turn controlled by it, describing mutual dependence.

A student could examine institutional mechanisms listed (e.g., no-confidence motions, ministerial accountability) in a country's practice to assess independence.

Explicit statement listing 'No Continuity of Policies' as a demerit and linking instability (no-confidence, defections, coalitions) to inability to formulate/implement long-term policies.

A student could compare frequency of government changes in parliamentary countries with policy horizon lengths (e.g., multiyear plans) to judge whether instability plausibly breaks continuity.

Defines parliamentary government as one where the executive is responsible to the legislature for its policies — implying executive policy depends on legislative confidence/majority.

Using this rule, a student could check whether changes in legislative majorities (e.g., after elections or defections) have historically led to policy reversals.

Explains that ministers remain in office only while they have confidence of the legislature — connecting ministerial tenure to legislative support.

A student could examine if short ministerial tenures in practice correlate with interrupted or truncated long-term policy initiatives.

Describes legislative instruments (deliberation, approval/refusal, financial control, no-confidence) that enable the legislature to control or change executive policy at multiple stages.

One could analyze whether use of these instruments (e.g., frequent no-confidence threats or budgetary blocks) tends to force policy shifts, reducing continuity.

Notes that while ministers set policy, a permanent civil service 'actually runs' the administration and is non-political — suggesting administrative continuity even if political leadership changes.

A student might investigate whether civil service implementation smooths over political changes, preserving policy continuity despite ministerial turnover.