Introduction A parliamentary system of government is one in which government governs in and through the assembly of the parliament, thereby fusing the executive and legislative branch of government. Heywood (2000:313). Although they are formally distinct, the assembly and the executive are bound together in a way that violates the doctrine of separation of power. The British Parliament is one of the oldest parliaments in the world. This study is concerned with understanding the efficiency and effectiveness of the parliament in producing legislation.
Word Count: 2,184 The core component of modern liberal democracies is the legislature and political institutions it is comprised of. Different factors are involved towards the evolution of political institutions in each of these countries. For instance, The United States and The United Kingdom are known to be powerful liberal democracies, though both nations differ politically. The key difference between the two nations is their system of government and looking at how each system works is particularly important while determining how democratic the nation really is. In this paper I will demonstrate how both nations evolved constitutionally and illustrate the factors resulting in the United States developing a presidential system and the United Kingdom developing a parliamentary system.
The head of government, in another word, chief executive, in the other hand, seen as the ones who are the head of nation’s legislature and holding the actual powers on governing affairs. In the presidential government, those two roles, head of state and the head of government are overlapped and joined in a single person. While in the parliamentar... ... middle of paper ... ... Australian Prime Minister, in some ways, has imported practices for the American president. However, the Prime Minister seems to be able to compete with president as it has increasing power in hand and ability in dealing national affair by its decisions. Because of the independent legislature, the members of the Congress can have meaningful political career, and have real power to influence public policy which unlike that in Australian parliament, the party members need the support of the party leader if they want to influence the state.
The effectiveness of Westminster Parliament in holding the executive to account relies on a number of variables, arguably, the most important being the degree of the government’s majority. Other variables include the unity of the party, the presence of a foreign war or the presence of a hostile media. This being said, there are also a number of mechanisms by which Parliament is able to hold the executive accountable. Westminster Parliament has the ability to hold the executive to account through a variety of methods, such as through the House of Lords. Though it is unelected, the Lords fulfill a fundamental democratic requirement; as the upper chamber within a bicameral legislature, it acts as a constitutional check and balance on executive power.
The head of government within this system is the Prime Minister, who serves as head of both the executive and legislative branches. Prime Ministers achieve power through their political party, who typically achieve the highest percentage of seats after an election, and are ultimately selected by the Parliament to serve. Essentially, this takes the responsibility of citizens from appointing the Prime Minister by allowing the elected Cabinet from selecting the preferred candidate. The British Parliamentary system & American Presidential: Net Benefits & Negatives Within the framework of the both of these political systems, contrasting differences exist but irrespective of this, we must consider the negatives and positives each system helps create for the respective constituencies they were created to represent.
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.
So for the purpose of this essay, the arguments put forward will elucidate using the strictest understanding of what the democratic systems of Parliamentarism and Presidentialism pertain to. As outlined, the main focus of this paper will endeavour to show the advantages of Parliamentarism pitched against Presidentialism. In orde... ... middle of paper ... ...uaranteed to create democratic stability, or even make better and more insightful decisions than their Presidential counterparts, but he does state 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 the imperfect systems’ of Parliamentarism over Presidentialism. Admittedly, mainly because of word count restrictions, the paper is not a comprehensive examination of the different democratic environments, and is very much open to debate, but by taking this approach of loosely contrasting Parliamentarism and Presidentialism, I have attempted to show the flexibility and inherent benefits of Parliamentarism.
You only have to examine the ritual patterns of the British media to realise that the Prime Minister is taken as the representative and primary force of the executive and of government in general. If you look at Tony Blair 's control over cabinet meetings, the hiring and firing of ministers, his interference in departmental affairs, his use of civil service appointments and patronage, it 's pretty clear that the Prime Minister is no longer the mere leader of the cabinet, but the executive superior to the cabinet. However, one could argue that because the power of the cabinet is dependent on the power of the prime minister, the Prime Ministerial Model of British politics could potentially
On the other hand, there’re some major attributes that get accepted. It‘s accepted that this model of Westminster democracy has well-built devolved cabinet government control through the political group in authority at the moment. Parliamentary autonomy is as well important with supremacy just inside the state (Lane & Svante 2000, 82).The mainstream group is the group which enacts or executes laws as well as support these policies and get usually supported through their group 's backbenchers. The two-party organisation exists under Westminster replica and the opposing group exists to show the errors of the appointed party 's guiding principles because the opposing party 's objective involves checking on the party in power with an aim of becoming elected in future elections (Lane & Svante 2000, 44). It’s too a facet that policies are responsible since it’s merely the state that is engaged during the process of policy making, where officials appointed by citizens are agents of their citizens and work for their interests.
Power of the British Prime Minister The prime minister is that person who leads the majority party in the House of Commons, or who commands a majority of support in that house. PMs continue in office until they resign or concede a defeat after a general election. They also may reign after losing a motion of no confidence. In the 19th Century, Bagehot wrote (in the English constitution 1867), that parliamentary government had been superseded by Cabinet Government - that the theoretical sovereignty of parliament had been delegated to the executive for all practical purposes. The powers of government, and its cohesion under the convention of collective responsibility, ensured that the government could maintain a united front in the face of parliamentary opposition.