France and Great Birtain's Political Systems
INTRODUCTION
I chose these two systems, which interest me for different reasons. The British system is one that has evolved over many centuries, with both small and large adjustments along the way to keep in on course. In contrast to this, the French model has changed dramatically on several occasions, and can rarely have been described as stable. However, in 1958 Charles de Gaulle made some brave changes to the constitution, which after being approved by the French public, set the scene for the classic semi-presidential system that we see today.
Despite these opposing histories, there are many similarities between the two systems, which I intend to discuss.
BRITAIN
The United Kingdom is a democratic constitutional monarchy, with a system of government often known as the Westminster Model. It has been used as a model of governance in many countries, and undoubtedly indirectly inspired many more.
Somewhat unusually, the constitution is unwritten, consisting of conventions along with statutory law and common law, which are collectively referred to as British constitutional law.
The head of state and theoretical source of executive and legislative power in the UK is the British monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II. In theory, the British sovereign can dissolve Parliament whenever they desire. They can in theory choose any British citizen to be Prime Minister, even if they are not a member of the House of Commons or House of Lords. Theoretically, the Sovereign possesses the ability to refrain from granting Royal Assent to a Bill from Parliament, in addition to being able to declare war and appoint ministers.
In practice, the head of state is a largely ceremonial role, with powers restricted by convention. However, the monarch holds three essential rights, the right to be consulted, the right to advise and the right to warn. Also, as the position of head of state tends to be held for a longer period of time than that of Prime Minister, the monarch builds up lots of experience and wisdom which is at the disposal of the government.
Thus the political head of the UK is the Prime Minister(PM), who must be supported by the House of Commons.
The executive branch of the UK system is the Government (or more formally, Her Majesty’s Government). The monarch appoints (or in reality, approves) ...
... middle of paper ...
...l Government
This is another area that comparison to the UK bears fruit. Both countries are highly regionalised, with distinct languages and cultures differing from the main national identity. However, Britain has made great strides to offer representation to its regions, whereas France has traditionally been very highly centralised, with each of France's departments headed by a prefect appointed by the central government.
The process of decentralisation in France is making progress, although very slowly.
In 1982, the national government granted a wide range of administrative and fiscal powers to local elected officials. In March 1986, regional councils were directly elected for the first time. In March 2003, a constitutional revision has changed very significantly the legal framework and could lead to more decentralisation in the coming years.
Bibliography
Contemporary France: An Introduction to French Politics and Society ~Catherine Fieschi, et al
France Since 1945 ~Robert Gildea
The Globalization of World Politics ~John Baylis (Editor), Steve Smith (Editor)
How Parliament Works ~Paul Silk, et al Longman
Political Institutions in Europe ~ Mény, Y et al
Australia is currently a constitutional monarchy, meaning that the Queen is our current head of state. We also have a written constitution, which limits the Queen and other authorities power. The governor general, who is appointed on the advice of the prime minister, represents the Queen.
In comparison to the American System of government, other nations such as Britain, France, Canada, and Mexico are quite similar. The British Parliamentary system does not have two houses of the legislature; however it has the upper house called the House of Lords, which were comprised of Britain as in dukes, earls, viscounts, barons, and bishops.
Monarchies have shifted to less political importance over the years in favor to parliament and a democratically elected prime minister. The film The Queen is a great example of the limited power of Queen Elizabeth II in present-day and shows the ceremonial purposes of her role. The main reasons that this role shift has happened is because monarchs abused their unlimited power repeatedly. Oliver Cromwell was one man who did not like the way his King, Charles I, was controlling the country and decided to do something about it. What some find startling is that Charles I reign ended by being sentenced to death, and by being beheaded under the weight of an axe.
A1. England was run by a Parliament and per history had very limited involvement of the monarchy or direct rule by the king. As well as the colonial legislatures; members were elected by property-holding men and governors were given authority to make decisions on behalf of the king. This system our leadership and how it controls its people the reason many
nt. Many monarchies, such as Britain and Denmark, are actually governed by parliaments. The first form of this government was founded by Ancient Greece. The ancient greeks had a king or queen that would rule over everyone in the polis. The citizens did not have a say in government and all the choices were left to the government. This kind of government would be great if you had no idea what to do if you had a say in government, but if you did and you weren’t royalty, you would most likely be mistreated and not heard. So this government would be ideal if your people are dumber than sheep and needed to be hearded.
Australia has three levels of government that work together to provide Australians with the services they need. The three levels are: federal parliament, state/territory parliaments, and local councils. Each level of government has its own responsibilities. The federal parliament makes laws for the whole of Australia. The state and territory parliaments make laws for their state or territory. There are six state and two mainland territory parliaments. Over 560 local councils make local laws for their district or region. Australia is both a representative democracy and a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elisabeth II as Australia’s head of state.
But the Executive branch has it all, power, commands, and says to do stuff! From major responsibilities that have to do with other courtiers to processing a law. To Presidency which allows him to do as wished and the Executive there to support him. Executive has the power because everything is mainly about the President. The rest are just based on courts and cases but the Executive has more control in everything they do. Therefore I believe the Executive has more power and is more influential than the rest of the government
First, there are major points that give the monarchy a better form of government. A major point is impartiality, Presidents and Prime Ministers come to power after expensive and difficult elections, which take a lot of time. These people make commitments to their voters to cr...
The British constitution, which is derived from various written sources including Act of Parliaments, judicial decisions, constitutional conventions, European Union law and international law, is largely uncodified.
Ministerial Accountability Under the UK Constitution “The prerogative has allowed powers to move from Monarch to Ministers without Parliament having a say in how they are exercised. This should no longer be acceptable to Parliament or the people.” Discuss whether ministerial accountability is adequately addressed under the UK constitution The Royal Prerogative has allowed a wide array of discretionary powers to be delegated from the Monarch to ministers without a need to seek parliamentary approval. This system is both unjust and undemocratic as it leaves a number of largely unchecked powers in the hands of a privileged few. These powers, including the ability to ratify treaties, declare war, regulate the civil service and appoint ministers, have a profound effect on the lives of the citizens of the United Kingdom and therefore it is necessary for them to be regulated by Parliament, the democratically elected body of the British people.
The United Kingdom is formally called “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.” Government in the United Kingdom is considered to be Parliamentary. Although it is parliamentary, it is also described as being “majoritarian.” Parliament in the UK works a little different than the United States; the people of the U.S. are allowed to elect their president. In the parliamentary system the people elect who will be in the legislature, and the legislature then selects who the next prime minister will be. Then, once the prime minister is selected he choses members of the cabinet. This system creates a quick and easy political decision-making by popular majority. In this essay we will discuss the strengths and limitations the majoritarian government of the UK. One of the strengths of majoritarian government is perhaps that it is the fastest to pass or veto legislation, however there are limitations or weaknesses also like it lacks checks and balances from the House of Lords, and the disadvantage that the smaller parties have when it comes to elections, and not having a set calendar date for elections.
The monarchy symbolizes unity and traditions, which is unique and treasured to the nation. The monarch universally known as head of the Commonwealth, she is voluntarily recognised as the Head of State to 54 independent countries (The British Monarchy, 2013) The Queen to modern Britain, is an icon, who cannot simply be swapped for an elected politician. The British monarchy has played huge importance in British history, which is integral to our national identity. The Queen reined for 61 years and she provides an existing connection between the past, present and future. This is exactly what a politician could not offer to the public; for instance, Tony Blair, prior to 1997 was unknown on a state level, as he had done nothing significant for the British public. The monarchy’s traditions are famous not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the world. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is the ruler of sixteen other countries including Britain. Whilst the queen receives many privileges as head of state, it does come at a personal cost. Her privacy is limited as she is consistently scrutinized from t...
Every country differs in their preference of political system to govern their countries. For democratic countries, two possible choices of governing are the presidential system and the parliamentary system. Since both the presidential and the parliamentary systems have their own strengths and weaknesses, many scholars have examined these two forms of government, and debate on which political system is more successful in governance. In this paper, I will first provide a detailed analysis of both the parliamentary and the presidential system. I will also evaluate each system’s strengths and weaknesses, addressing any differences as well as any commonalities. Finally, I will conclude by using historical examples to analyze and support the presidential system, which would be a more desirable system for a democratic government.
The executive branch includes the head of government/head of state and their cabinet. As the leader of the state, the executive is considered the “top-tier of government.” Their job is to be the political leader of a country. In the case of
It is well known that the British political system is one of the oldest political systems in the world. Obviously, it was formed within the time. The United Kingdom of the Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the constitutional monarchy, providing stability, continuity and national focus. The monarch is the head of state, but only Parliament has the right to create and undertake the legislation. The basis of the United Kingdom’s political system is a parliamentary democracy. Therefore, people think the role of the Queen as worthless and mainly unnecessarily demanding for funding, but is it like that?