Today the U.S. government’s legislative branch, Congress, is divided into two independent chambers, the House of Representatives and the Senate. The system is called a bicameral system, which means it is divided into two chambers. The Framers of the Constitution created the system because was it successful in Britain, the two separate chambers could ensure that each side would not abuse their power, and the system created a compromise between the New Jersey and Virginia Plan. Although both chambers can initiate laws, they were created independent of each other and different in authority. In the House, “committees consider bills and issues and oversee agencies, programs, and activities within their jurisdictions” (House of Representatives).
At times Westminster Parliament is very effective in holding the executive accountable by use of scrutiny and various other mechanisms. However, this is not necessarily the case in times of huge majorities in favour of the executive such as in the cases of Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher. In short, the effectiveness of Westminster Parliament depends on the situation in terms of (the biggest factor being) degree of majority, presence of war, unity of the party and hostility of the media.
It comes as a surprise to many, given the ostensible thirst for power of the Blair administration, that since coming into power in 1997 it should have undertaken admittedly moderate reforms with the aim... ... middle of paper ... ... to hold the government to account - if it were able to tie it down to its mandate - but the government's domination of parliament has led it to control parliament's means of scrutiny and opposition. Among them, select committee powers, the time allocated to government scrutiny and the success of Private Member's Bills are all subject to the government's patience with them. Indeed it is largely due to governments' compliance with 'the rules' of British parliamentary government - the uncodefied conventions of our constitution that demand the ability of parliament to hold government to account - that parliament retains any real powers of scrutiny at all. The government is bound to constitutional moderateness by its need to keep the electorate onside: only in this context can government ever expect not to get its own way.
Additionally, with the fusion of powers, the party that controls the legislature also directs the executive branch. “This combination of legislative and executive power in the hands of the government party is the basic feature of the Westminster model.” (Wilson 1994, p.193, as quoted in Lamprinakou 2014) With that being said, this essay will discuss and compare the strengths and weaknesses of the Westminster model, and argue the accuracy of this type of government for the present-day United Kingdom. As discussed in lecture, there are six main features of the British political system that distinguish the U... ... middle of paper ... ... advantage, that may seem disadvantageous to some, is the ability to easily get rid of the Prime Minister, as seen in Chamberlain’s and Thatcher’s reign. Chamberlain became Prime Minister in 1937 and was very popular for his aggressive actions in Munich. In 1939, Chamberlain promised that Britain would defend Poland’s independence in an attack, and therefore Britain joined the war.
When looking at the different political systems across the world, parliamentary and presidential systems can be seen as two eminent and highly successful democracy as used most famously by Britain the United States respectively. Due to their difference in the system of governing, the role of an Australian Prime Minister may vary from that of an American President. Thus, differentiation of the system may incur a verity of responsibility and privilege that one and another desire to hold. First of all, the power distribution varies in these two systems. The position of president grants him/herself both the head of government, also known as chief executive and the head of state.
This implies that the laws are made by the parliament and suggests parliamentary supremacy. Recently, there has been argument that the British parliament are inefficient and ineffective in legislative duties this was born out of the fact that the European Union have over shadowed the activities of the many European countries such that EU laws override that of the individual nations. The members of British parliament refer to the two chambers made up of the popularly elected House of Common and non elected House of Lords. In the view of Almond et al (2000: 136), within the British parliament, the prime minister occupies a unique position sometimes refers to as Primus inter pares i.e first among equal. But to become a prime minister, a politician must first be elected leader of his/her political party, which qualifies him/her to be prime minister if his/her party wins the majority seat in the
The Power and Significance of Congress Firstly it is important to look at the power and significance of congress as a legislative body. This includes the creation of law, and the scrutiny of the executive. Because the US federal system is ruled by 'separation of powers', it is important that the legislative - congress - acts as a good check and restraint on the executive - the president. The most significant power that congress has is to create and pass legislation. Most of the creation is down to congressional committees - specialist groups of congressman who revise and investigate laws into their own committee's interests, for example The House Science Committee.
THE SEARCH FOR TRUE REPRESENTATION A Contrasting view on the American Presidential System & British Parliamentary System Within the realm of the political world, scholars of political science have researched and studied many different Democratic governments. Testing and analyzing many different factor from by which one can accurately describe their overall effectiveness with respect to maintaining the very precept of promoting Democracy. The goal of this essay will be to compare both the British parliamentary system with the American Presidential system. It would only be fair to compare our current Democratic government to that of our former colonizers, whose parliamentary system, is a form of government we have borrow many great influences from. Additionally, these two countries share very similar qualities with one another.
Something based on this belief may well be valid but with numerous pieces of evidence that suggest the traditional role of the British Prime Minister is becoming more presidential and modern society adhering less to written convention, it has become far less clear who wields the most domestic power outside of conventional parameters. Both the UK Prime Minister and US president are the key figures in their countries politics. The UK Prime Minister has no formal written role but is rather a product of convention and historical evolution. His main powers include those of patronage, the control of the cabinet and its agenda, and the overall direction of government policy, both of head of government and leader of the party in power. In contrast, the US president has an official outlined role.
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 concept of parliamentary political system was rooted in 1707 of Great Britain; the word derives from ‘parley’, a discussion. It was used to describe meetings between Henry III and noblemen in the Great Council (Szilagyi, 2009). It was originated in British political system and is often known as the Westminster model as it was used in the Palace of Westminster.