What do we mean when we talk about feasibility?
One of the most common pushbacks I get when proposing parliamentarism is that it would not be feasible. I think, however, that the word feasibility has been used in political discourse in different aceptions as if they were all the same, and this leads to a lot of confusion.
Merriam-Webster's definition of unfeasible is "not capable of being done or carried out". But there are different ways things may be not capable of being done, and a crucial aspect is to consider the amount of effort put into it. Some things are unfeasible independently of how much effort we dedicate to it. That is the case of perpetual motion machines and socialism* . Other things may be deemed unfeasible because they inspire so much rejection that they would never or almost never be implemented, even if they are feasible given implementation. Markets for kidneys could be an example. While there is no theoretical reason for them not to work, both the public and policymakers consistently reject them.
Often, however, people will say something is unfeasible because it is not popular. When people object that parliamentarism is not feasible, it may be this last meaning they have in mind, because parliamentarism is obviously feasible in both the first and second aceptions. It has been implemented in scores of countries, and is working better than any other governance arrangement and well enough for its proponents.
This third meaning is a curious application of "unfeasible" for proposed changes. If any proposed change was already popular with both the public and policymakers, it would not be a proposal, it would be policy already. Every idea must start with at least being not popular, and frequently they start as downright unpopular because of status quo bias. What makes this objection more curious is that people will frequently proudly announce their utopianism. In my home country, it is common to wear t-shirts with a Bertolt Brecht quote: "Nothing should seem impossible to change." I would never go that far. Some things are impossible to change (entropy and conservation of energy, for example) and we should be very aware that they are impossible so as not to waste our time, at best, or aggravate problems, at worse. But things that can be changed surely should be perceived that way, particularly if the energy spent on changing them is much smaller than the benefits expected.
Which leads to a fourth, unrecognized, connotation of "unfeasible": uncool. I suspect that many people may reject ideas because they don't like the overall associations the ideas may have. They (all of us, really) reject them at a gut level, they anticipate others will do so too, which makes those ideas more prone to be called unfeasible. It is a good heuristic. We don't have the time to listen to all ideas in the world, if something sounds too weird at first glance, it probably is. But often we have good reasons to fight this first reaction, investigate deeper, and conclude that the uncool thing should actually be cool. We have gone a long way for such things as gay marriage, marijuana legalization and even parking requirements.
Which brings me to the final point. This whole post is my very uncool way to invite readers to become "hipster parliamentarists" - propose it before it is cool.
*Of course some forms of socialism are feasible and have existed, but socialists consistently claim that those are not truly socialist, so I will respect their definition and conclude that the true socialism they argue for is the one which is unfeasible.