Nowadays, the monarchy we know is constitutional monarchy. This means that the government is carried out in the name of the monarch, but the monarch is not above the law and does not have the free will to do as they please. Since the Prime Minister is considered the Head of Government, the Prime Minister and h...
They rule what they call a monarchy. The Monarchy In contrast to such republics as the United States and France, Britain has a hereditary ruler; so Great Britain is a monarchy. Its monarch bears the title of queen or king. While English monarchs once ruled with absolute power, their role has changed , and they are now little more than figureheads. Because her powers and duties are controlled by Britain's unwritten constitution, Elizabeth II, Britain's queen since 1952, is known as a constitutional monarch.
Clearly, the powers which the monarch now exercises are more theoretical than real, but we still have our queen in Britain. The supporters would say our queen is an impartial head of state, as a symbol of national unity and continuity. Yes, she is, and so was the monarchs before 1707. Why did we change the absolute monarchy into a constitutional monarchy? Is it better?
In essence the judge would only be able to reflect the view of the legislature through his interpretation of the laws that had been reconfigured by the legislative branch. The current unbalance of power within Great Britain’s government shows how the government can be viewed as a parliamentary-dictatorship due the prominent power that the Prime Minister has over the rest of the government through controlling both the executive branch and parliament, which is composed of both the House of Lords and The Commons. After more substantial reform the government in the United Kingdom has come to a more unified status; however, there is still arguably a parliamentary dictatorship in Great Britain despite recent reform due to the control of the prime minister though policy making and implementation. Great Britain is arguably a parliamentary dictatorship due to the immense power that the Prime Minister and his party have over government relative to their opposition. The Prime Minister’s hold of office depends upon his party having the m... ... middle of paper ... ...as a overwhelming influence on how the government operates.
A monarchy may be a limited monarchy, a constitutional monarchy, or an absolute monarchy. A limited monarchy is one in which the royalty have only ceremonial powers. An example of this is in the United Kingdom. While Queen Elizabeth is considered the queen, she has no authority in lawmaking and does not deal with the parliament. A limited monarchy merely has a royal family for ceremonies and in keeping with tradition.
Parliament's Loss of Sovereignty Parliamentary Sovereignty is defined in two terms. These are legal and political. The legal term means that Parliament can do what they want to for example making laws, which can’t be overruled by anyone, and that Parliament has unrestricted powers. There are three elements to the Parliamentary, which are the Commons, the Lords and the Monarch. Another thing about the legal term is that no parliament can pass a law which would affect successors.
A presidential system is not perfect, but it has it’s high and low points. The other type of political system being analyzed is a parliamentary system. A parliamentary system has its executive branch in ... ... middle of paper ... ... be elected by the majority of the population of the country. Also there being a written constitution in a presidential system makes it easier to prefer because this explains the law precisely and accurately. In a presidential system there is a judicial branch which makes it fair to be tried for crimes, which is a plus too.
In other words, there is a government shutdown because no compromise is reached. Making it hard to form coalitions. Coalitions under presidentialism are often very rare due to the fact that there is no incentive to do so (J. Cheibub 1). Lastly, the government under presidential systems are decentralized, the President directly responds to proposals in the legislative branch that influences the government's ability to create policy (J. Cheibub 1). There is very little cooperation in a presidential system compared to a parliamentary one.
1.2.AN UNWRITTEN CONSTITUTION Britain doesn't have a written constitution; instead the country is governed by principles built up over the centuries. *Statute Laws: written law of a legislative body: Parliamentary Acts *Common Laws: unwritten law of England, administered by the Queen's courts, deriving from ancient usage: made by judges *Conventions: principles- agreement between parties- which aren't legally obliging but which have the power of the law. E.g. Magna Carta *EC laws: having the status of conventions, some are more important than government laws. The trouble is some of these laws are written down and some others aren't.
A major disadvantage to Presidential systems would be that the separation of powers in the presidential form of governance shows an incomplete level of responsibility and the legislature and executive branches end up blaming each other. An example of a Presidential system is the United States along with most of Latin America, many African countries, and some Asian countries. In a Parliamentary system there is a power concentration instead of division of powers. The Legislature is the greatest power, the government and the executive branch is dependent on Parliament. In contrast to Presidential systems, parliamentary and semi-presidential democracies have Legislative responsibility.