Romeo Ardimento 9745 7U AP Comparative Government Mr. Polazzo Pd. 7
Mini-Paper 1: American Government vs. British Government
Neither the United States government nor that of the United Kingdom is ideal. Both systems are marred with serious problems that cripple their respective nations to some extent. Progress in Washington is often stifled by serious gridlock and partisanship is rampant. Relatively little has been done to stop blatantly corrupt practices such as bribery and gerrymandering. However, although the United States government is certainly flawed, it is relatively young and has evolved at an astonishing since the country declared independence in 1776. The British government on the other hand and is still a technically a monarchy. Britain has taken some baby steps towards actually having a true democracy, but until the royal family is no longer even slightly significant, their governmental system will always be inferior to that of the United States.
In my mind Kate Middleton is no better than Kim Kardashian and should be no more respected. At least Kim Kardashian is beautiful and her husband is actually talented! Nobody should ever have the right to rule by birth. Although I believe that President Barack Obama is a much better leader than Prime Minister David Cameron, at least Cameron and his peers in parliament earned the positions that they are currently lucky enough to have. Queen Elizabeth II may only be a mere figurehead, but she has relatively pitiful credentials and represents the entire United Kingdom and the other commonwealth realms! She like the rest of her family was born with a silver spoon in her mouth and has not had to earn very much. Obama on the other hand was raised by a single mother and had to wo...
... middle of paper ...
...government, which often means trouble. In the United States both of our legislative houses are directly elected, however in Britain the House of Lords is largely appointed. Britain simply isn’t as democratic as the United States.
All in all both government systems are not all that different. Both are actually pretty terrible. Money dominates American politics and the poor are treated like dirt. America and Britain have been imperialist nations and capitalism is dominant in both countries. Although I am not advocating for Socialism, both countries would benefit from more of a mixed economy. The main problem that I have with the government in the United Kingdom is that they still have people worshipping a monarch in the 21st century. Britain is a beautiful country with great culture, however they need to let go of their monarchy even if it is “constitutional”.
Constitutional monarchies like the UK have combined the best aspects of democracy, monarchy, and aristocracy in hopes of removing tyranny, anarchy, and oligarchy. In the United States we give power to an elected body of many individuals, however, we retain power as citizens and individuals of this country through our right to vote for these elected officials. The power of a citizen outside of politics is fixed based on their ability/inability to vote. However, certain politicians have done specifically what Madison hoped this Constitution would prevent. They have created “democratic” factions through a populist perspective that has put certain people in a position of power by appealing to the common people. They have divided our society leading in comparison to the way in which other democracies as Madison explains have
The U.S. government is a democracy built off of the bases of greek and roman government, both of which are more common than most realize. Through the attempt of recreating these two once great societies the United States has built what is now known as arguably the most stable government on the planet. Thanks to these two societies the United States of America is the global powerhouse government and society where everyone wants to live today.
When the term “monarch” is used, the first thing that comes to mind is a bombastic king and queen with unlimited power. The reality is, this is not always true. The definition of a monarch is “someone who is the head of a state government, either in reality or symbolically” (Nederman 2). Such a government is known as a monarchy. A monarch usually either inherits sovereignty by birth or is elected. Either way, a monarch typically rules for life or until abdication. Depending on the type of government in place, the “monarch’s true power varies from one monarchy to another” (Nederman 2). They may be complete tyrants, known as an absolute monarchy. On the other hand, they may be ceremonial heads of state who exercise little or no power and are only a figure head which is known as a constitutional monarchy (Nederman 2). These different types of governments have all been around for about the same amount of time. However, some are more renowned than others.
"THE RELIGION OF THE QUEEN - TIME FOR CHANGE." University of Queensland Law Journa (2011): n. pag. Web.The British monarchy is a system of government in which a traditional monarch is the sovereign of the United Kingdom out of the country territories, and holds the constitutional position of head of state. According to the article, the Queen's powers are exercised upon the suggestion of her prime minister. Moreover, she firmly reserves powers which she may exercise at her own discretion. The Queen has many theoretical personal advantages and disadvantages. One disadvantages was that UK prohibits her from get married with a catholic member either being a roman catholic. However, with the exception of the appointment of the major minister, which is done with every prime minister, there are few positions in modern British government where these could be justifiably exercised; they have rarely been exercised in the last century. These powers could be exercised in an emergency such as a constitutional
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.
From the founding of the American colonies by the British, They had practiced salutary neglect. They allowed the colonist to become use to the idea of self-rule. This lasted through to the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the Constriction. Although there was fighting between the Large-state plan and the small state plan, they compromised to a two house legislative branch. The formation of a new government like this can be challenging, but through compromises like this they made it work. They need a government that is strong enough to keep the union but not too strong that it is tyrannical. But with the development of checks and balances they add a self-limiting power to the
The government will never be perfect, but there are always ways to improve it. The government that exists today in America is becoming more fascist every day. The government is in control of everything: political, social, and economic issues No one should ever trust a system in which throughout history has stolen land from the natives and have taken part in genocide. The United States has become a place full of corporate greed and profit. Profit over people, profit over lives, profit over morals. The government is the host to capitalism, which only leads to conformist enslavement.
The British public’s view on the monarchy has changed tremendously over the past two centuries. Because of this, the monarchy’s social and political roles have been steadily declining. The reasons behind this are the Great Reform Bill of 1832, growing political parties, and the actions of the Royal Family.
England’s government also has a few similarities with ours. Even though there government is a monarchy and ours is a republic. Their current leader is Queen Elizabeth II. The Queen of England is more of a symbol than a ruler. The actual ruler is a cabinet of people. The head of the cabinet is the Prime Minister. England also has a law making body, which passes all the laws. They are like our congress. The capital of England is London and the government buildings are located in a region of London call Westminster.
The stricter and more literal approach to separation of powers and Montesquieu as adopted by presidential systems such as the US for example, may confer its own benefits such as increased security and greater guarantee against tyrannical or arbitrary power. However, the efficiency, speed in deliberation, and an overall more wholesome and united government, all while in retaining its democratic principles, makes it so that it does not warrant grand constitutional reforms for the purpose of further distinguishing between powers. Though that is not to dismiss entirely the notion of a separation of powers existing within the UK constitution, but simply that it is more appropriate to address it as its variant, that focuses less on prioritising safeguards to hypotheticals, and instead to the cohesion, ‘blending’, or ‘fusion of powers’, which promotes efficient
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.
the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time." -
"As at present constituted, the federal government [of the United States of America] lacks strength because its powers are divided, lacks promptness because its authorities are multiplied, lacks wieldiness because its processes are roundabout, lacks efficiency because its responsibility is indistinct and its action is without competent direction." Although this statement, by Woodrow Wilson, was made in the 1920's, it can still be argued today on account of the fact that not much has changed in the way the United States government operates. Still existing in the American way of governing is the theory of the separation of powers, which was evolved within the United States. The theory assumes three well-defined and more or less independent "organs" of government. Each of these organs is regarded as within its sphere to be beyond the control of the other "organs" . The United States' government is a presidential system (or congressional system) and is considerably unlike the parliamentary system. While both the American presidential system and the parliamentary system have both strengths and weaknesses, on balance, the parliamentary system is the superior system.
During the Victorian Era, a monarchy ruled the English Government (“Late Victorian Politics” 1). This type of governing body had been in place for centuries, and the popularity was less accepted by the people of the land (“Victorian Government” 1). Although Queen Victoria was considered a fair and just monarch, daily decisions were made by the Prime Minister and other appointed and elected officials. However, she did meet with them and make suggestions (“Victorian Government” 1). The government also consisted of the Parliament which was a bicameral legislature (“Late Victorian Politics” 1). This legislature contained the House of Lords and the House of Commons (“Late Victorian Politics” 1). Members of the House of Commons were elected by public vote while members of the House o...
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?