Blog Discussion Group Six
Blog post due at 11:55pm on October 31 and comment due at 11:55pm on November 3.
Britain
- Is the British prime minister more powerful than the president of the
- How does the power of the prime minister compare with that of the
- Given a choice between serving as the president of the
How does the power of the prime minister compare with that of the U.S. president?
ReplyDeleteA main difference between the prime minister and the U.S. president is that it is much more difficult to remove the U.S. president from office, which results in the U.S. president having a lot more freedom and power to do as they please without much consequences if the general public does not like it. In The Introduction to Comparative Politics, it states, "Between presidential elections, it is very difficult to remove a president, even one who has very little popular support or is suspected of acting unconstitutionally. It requires impeachment, which, in turn, requires a finding of extraordinary misconduct and a strong majority vote in the legislator" (69).
On the other hand though, if the U.S. president is highly favored, they still can only stay in office for four years and if re-elected, eight, but the prime minister does hold a lot of power in the fact that if they are well liked and have a high confidence with the general population, then they can stay in power for a very long time which therefore allows them to get a lot done.
Although it is in place that the prime minister could be voted out, is was said in the book that, "if recent history is a good predictor, an American president is more likely to face a bill of impeachment than a British prime minister is to face a serious vote of no confidence" (69).
So as we see although on the surface it may seem that the president has more power because of the legality of not being able to be voted out, I would argue that the prime minister has more power in that they not only have been less likely to be voted out, but they also can stay in office for much longer.
It is definitely true. The US president have more freedom and power. You did a good job here. But I think maybe you explain on the power of prime minister too much broad. Maybe if you tell us more about this, the post would be perfect. Well done, still!
DeleteIn theory, Mallory, I agree with your assessment that the Prime Minister appears to have more power because they have no preset term limits. However, that is not what happens in practice. Of the 39 UK (or British) Prime Ministers who have served since the election of the first US president in 1789, only eight have held terms longer than eight years [1]. The lengths are, 8.65, 8.67, 9.39, 10.15, 11.57, 12.35, 13.69, and 14.84 years. There have been some unusually long outlier terms since the creation of the first Prime Minister’s administration in 1721, such as
Delete• Sir Robert Walpole who started in 1721 and served just over 20 years,
• William Pitt the younger who started in 1783 and served for just over 18 years, and
• The Earl of Liverpool who started in 1812 and served for just over 14 years
However, since the first US presidential administration, UK (or British) Prime Ministers have served on average for 5.38 years, just a 1 1/3 of a year longer than one US presidential term. When we look at the median, since it’s more resistant to unusual variances, Prime Ministers have served a median of only 4.46 years, which is a little less than 1/2 a year longer than one US presidential term. We want to look at the median for that time-frame, because there were twelve Prime Ministers who had short terms of 1/3 of a year to 3 years in length, and there were six who had terms ranging from 9 to 15 years.
What appears to account for this contradiction between theory and reality is that a vote of no-confidence is not something that the opposing party attempts or threatens reluctantly out of a sense of loyalty to the existing government or deference toward maintaining civility. To the contrary, as Hague put it “the opposition will demand a vote of no-confidence whenever it senses an advantage from launching an attack. Should the government lose such a vote, it would be expected to resign, leading to a change of government or an election” (pg. 306). As you pointed out actual no-confidence votes are rare. In reality, what happens more frequently, according to Sartori, is that a weak or poorly disciplined majority, combined with an irresponsible opposition and an overall unwillingness to play by the rules, leads to the Prime Minister calling for elections (pg. 112). This usually overturns the majority. The executive in a majority styled parliamentary system being ‘organically linked to the assembly’, combined with the desire of the minority to be the majority, negates the benefits that a prime minister might receive from having no term limits (pg 305).
One interesting political experiment might be to see if Prime Ministers in other styles of parliamentary systems have longer average terms of office.
.
[1] History: Past Prime Ministers, https://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-prime-ministers
DISCLAIMER: This is an intellectual exercise, a college assignment. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the political views of the author.
How does the power of the Prime Ministerr compare with that of the U.S. President?
ReplyDeleteThe most important thing to begin with is how the two are elected differently from one another. A president is elected through a primary election-- a state-by-state process during which a political party chooses its candidate. The candidate then gets presented at a national convention-- a party announces it's candidates for president and vice president. The final stage, is for each candidate, of each party, to run in an election. The winner of the election is ultimately decided by the electoral college.
On the contrary, Great Britian has a total of four political parties; whereas, the United States has only two. In order to gain candidacy, the individual must prove themselves to the party they claim. The candidates chosen then become the party leader. Which ever candidate wins enough seats in the House of Commons, becomes the Prime Minister.
The United States president focuses solely on their own election. The Prime Minister has to focus on every election, that their associated party, believes they can win. The President is elected as the head of state, and runs the government in its entirety. However, the Prime Minister is elected as the head of government, and the Monarch is the head of state.
To conclude, the U.S. President has more power than Britians Prime Minister.
This is a great blog. I was comparing it to mine and I came up with a different conclusion. I Feel as if the Prime Minister and the President are both limited in different aspects and I am having a really hard time determining which has the greater power. I appreciate you writing about this and I compared it to mine and you have different view points and valid points. I think I am more confused now. Yours is so good I feel like maybe i have wrong points in mine. Thank you!
DeleteIts interesting to see how the two different systems elect their leaders. its interesting to see the in America's democracy each state votes and in parliamentary the legislation votes. Do you think that the competition between parties is healthy or should we move to a multi party system where they work together. Is the difference between the two directly related to how much power the minster and president have?
DeleteThis is a pretty good blog. It compares to mine and i think we both had great points. We did have some differences but that is good when talking about discussions. Our final answer was the same and I think that is what matters the most. The way that these two positions can be elected and kicked out interest me. And you answered both. Overall i learned from your blog. Good Job.
DeleteIs the British prime minister more powerful than the president of the United States, or vice versa? Is Parliament prime minister more powerful than Congress, or vice versa?
ReplyDeleteThe British prime minister is the leader of the majority party and can get necessary legislation passed. In this aspect then he is more powerful then the American President. The American President is elected every 4 years and the Prime minister is elected every 5 years. The President is in office under the constitution. He can be impeached by Congress. The Prime Minister's term is dependent on the House of commons. The President is the head of the head of the state as well as of his government. The Prime Minister is only the head of the government. The Prime minister is held accountable for his/her actions. Where as the President doesn't guide the legislation and he is not a member of congress.
I feel as if in America that the power is held by the people and we make the votes to the President. Where as, in Great Britain the Prime Minister runs the monarchy system and the power is bestowed to the queen. I feel the Prime Minister has more power then the President. I feel that the President has limited power.
I totally concur with your post. "In parliamentary systems, even when they are burdened by the compromises necessary to maintain coalition governments, prime ministers can exercise power in a way that a U.S. president or Congress can never expect to do." (Kesselman, 293) As the leader of the majority party and having the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Treasury Secretary) in their cabinet, the British PM can expedite policy measures much quicker than the president whose actions are kept in check by the Legislative and Judicial branches. All of the power in the parliamentary system is is concentrated at the top and all policy proposals as well as acts of parliament are siphoned through the executive branch at 10 Downing Street. So (in the Queen's name, of course), the Prime Minister is the linchpin of the system and personally responsible for making it all work.
DeleteI definitely agree with you that a Prime Minister has a lot of power even some power that a President does not. I do think that it balances out if not sways towards presidents having more power just because of how hard it is to remove presidents from power compared to Prime Ministers. Prime Ministers are essentially employees of controlling party of parliament and can be removed on a whim. While on the other hand "it is very difficult to remove a president, even one who has very little popular support or is suspected of acting unconstitutionally. It requires impeachment, which, in turn, requires a finding of extraordinary misconduct and a strong majority vote in the legislator" (69). I think that presidents have more power at the end of the day because of their job security.
DeleteHow does the power of the prime minister compare with that of the U.S. president?
ReplyDeleteIn terms of administration, the President of the United States is both the head of state and the head of government, with a huge power. British Prime Minister is the first minister of the British cabinet, is the head of government, but not the head of state, the king is the head of state. The British Prime Minister must be associated with all the members of the Cabinet on the parliamentary office with political responsibility, the lower house of parliament if you do not support the cabinet policy, or resigned by the cabinet collective, or by the British Prime Minister petitioned the king to dissolve the lower house of parliament, it has the re-election. The House of Commons decided whether the prime minister to stay in the Cabinet.
The president of the United States is completely separated from Congress, and the president is not a member of parliament at the same time. Various legislative proposals in Congress are made by members of Congress. The British Prime Minister also serves as a member of the House of Commons, has the right to legislate, who can be directly submitted to the Parliament draft law, to participate in legislative activities.
The President of the United States has the military power that the British Prime Minister does not have.
In terms of foreign affairs, the President of the United States has greater diplomatic rights than the British Prime Minister. The US federal constitution provides that the president and the parliament jointly exercise the power of the US government's foreign relations. The President and the Secretary of State deal with all official relations with foreign governments and protect the safety and interests of overseas Americans. The president has the power to decide whether to recognize the new state and the new government.
How does the power of the prime minister compare with that of the U.S. president?
ReplyDeleteTo get things started I am going to talk about some differences between a president and a prime minister. The president of the United States are only allowed a max of eight years and a prime minister could be in office much longer. The prime minister could stay in until they get voted out. Another thing is that the president is much safer in their position then the prime minister. If takes a lot more effort to get the president out of office. The prime minister may have more time at the top and be able to get more things accomplished but, they also can be voted out very quick. The prime minister is only the head of the government and the president has control of both the state and the government. Which means that the president has a larger variety of power than the prime minister.in our Introduction to Comparative Politics, it tells us, "Between presidential elections, it is very difficult to remove a president, even one who has very little popular support or is suspected of acting unconstitutionally. It requires impeachment, which, in turn, requires a finding of extraordinary misconduct and a strong majority vote in the legislator" (69).
That statement for our book tells me that the president has more power than the prime minister.
Would you not say that the Prime Minister has more power because he can influence the decision of legislature through the cabinet members? The president may be safer in office, but would you not rather have someone that is more liked and has more of a say in what legislation gets passed than someone that may have opposing views from his legislative branch?
DeleteIf I had the choice of being President of the United States or being Prime Minister on the United Kingdom i would choose President. I would choose President of the United States because, I know more about how the American government works than the United Kingdom's government works, i enjoy the powers of checks and balances, and I like how there are set terms. I know more about the American Government because i have spent my whole life here in the US learning how the government works and effects the people around it. I am also fortunate enough to have a sister who is a lawyer so i embraced her knowledge of the laws that have passed. I like how the powers of the government is separated based on checks and balances which prevent one of the branches of government from be coming too powerful. Finally i would want to be president because upon being elected i would be able to serve 4 consecutive years with being placed out of office due to the confidence agreement that Britain has.
ReplyDeleteI, too, at first thought that the President of the U.S. had more power because on the surface it seems he does. He gets to make all of his own decisions without having to worry about being voted out because of the confidence vote. But, when it comes down to it I really think that the Prime Minister has more power since if they appear to the public as doing things that appeal to the public, then they could stay in office for virtually forever which is a very powerful position. So while you have to weigh the amount of freedom in office, but for less time (U.S.) or less freedom in office, but be able to rule for longer (Britain) I think time is powerful and so the latter is the most powerful position. You make a good point though. Thoughts?
DeleteIf I had a grand scheme of an idea that I wanted to implement in order to make my country a better place, and had to choose whether to be the President of the United States or the British prime minister, I would definitely choose prime minister. This is because the prime minister shares many of the same powers as the US President, but as the head of a "majority party in parliament, government can be stable and decisive." (Hague and Harrop, 306). First, an elected President has at the most two four-year terms (Total 8 years). But if a Prime minister can manage to keep a majority, they can stay as long as they want (e.g. Thatcher 12 years, Walpole 20 years). The PM has similar duties as the President such as formal appointments, treaty negotiations, and power delegation (in the name of the crown). But the fact of having a majority government, policy can get pushed through into legislation without any of the Washington-style gridlock. Though the PM must get a majority of their cabinet to push policy, it's the PM who sets the agenda for the cabinet process. The PM has more budgetary control than the President. In fact, the PM along with the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Treasury Secretary) can override the Bank of England on setting interest rates. The President can work with congress on a budget but has no control over interest rates from the Fed. The PM also has more war powers in that the PM maintains the "War Book" and can use the "Royal prerogative" to deploy forces without Parliamentary consent. But... with the ultimate responsibility for a government's legislative program resting on my shoulders, probably won't be many long golf weekends like the President.
ReplyDelete
DeleteOnce in power and individual wants to maintain that power. At least would two four-year terms at the most and individual is forced to leave such power. It's evident by the stress that's been saying on the presidents of the United States can you compare their start-up terms to the end of term pictures. But if you look at individuals and Parliament they try to hold him to that power as long as they can, I can only imagine the stress of trying to make everybody happy in order to keep your position. Also gridlock in legislation is not as bad as it may seem. If you have a majority of in the legislation you push is going to get move through but it can be weighted towards one side or another. When you have gridlock there is more likely negotiation between both sides and more likely a middle ground when it comes to passing legislation even though it's far and few between. As much as we say we want change change is a difficult decision just look at what brexit is doing to England. So I'll be in the Prime Minister may seem like it has its advantages because they may seem to be more power, there's definitely more stress and more likely that there will be more than allies people if the majority can get there legislation push through.
It is interesting how their political structures differ from our own. The lack of the judicial branch of government and the PM's close ties with parliament is something I just recently learned. The way that the process checks itself does not sound as airtight as our system though. The lack of a constitution governing what government can and cannot do it a frightful concept to me as well. It is true that the PM can do more within their government, but I would not feel comfortable if I lived there myself.
DeleteGiven a choice between serving as the president of the United States or as the prime minister of Great Britain, which job would you prefer? Why?
ReplyDeleteI would have to chose the Prime Minister of Great Britain because as the PM and you keep the majority party interested, you can stay as long as you want. This is unlike the President because the President can only serve two four year terms. I like the idea of being answerable and accountable to the House of Commons. Also, the idea of actively participating in proceedings for legislation is an important part because the PM can get the necessary legislation passed, which makes him more powerful than the American President. The PM cannot afford to ignore the advice of his cabinet members. I would like the idea of bouncing ideas off of my colleagues in order to make a decision on something. The PM is also not responsible for the conclusion of treaties with foreign states and high appointments.
How does the power of the prime minister compare with that of the U.S. president?
ReplyDeleteWhile we as Americans tend to see our president as a very powerful figure, they are in fact limited by a few different factors. The system of checks and balances is in place specifically for this reason, and that separation of power is one of the large differences between the operating power of the American president as opposed to the British prime minister.
The British prime minister is an active member of his legislative cabinet, and has the ability to participate in and enact legislation. He has greater efficacy. In America, the president is not directly involved in the legislative portion of government, and cannot take part in the proceedings. He is also not a member of Congress.
Probably the only issue that truly favors the president over the prime minister in this comparison is the terms in which they serve. While the British prime minister can be outvoted from his position at any time, the American president is constitutionally promised 4 years in office, barring an impeachment.
Is the British prime minister more powerful than the president of the United States?
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to internal sovereignty, the British prime minister has more power than the president. Britain does not have three branches of government, but two. It lacks the judicial branch of government that the U.S. has. The president’s actions are critically analyzed by the Judicial branch when he does things such as executive actions. The judicial branch makes sure that what the president does is constitutional or not. The prime minister is not held back by a constitution or a judicial branch of government, only a legislative branch. The prime minister can hold office for an indefinite amount of time. Although they can be impeached at any time, there is still the possibility that they can hold office for years on end. The president, on the other hand, can only hold office for a maximum of eight years. Because the prime minister is not controlled by a constitution, and can theoretically hold office for as long as they would like, they have more power within their own government than the U.S. president.
Although the U.S. president has these institutions holding back his power, he is also the president of the U.S. He is commonly considered “the most powerful man in the world” for a reason. America is a national super power that its actions are commonly are felt across the globe. That is not to say Britain is a country lacking in power, but when compared to America, the difference is substantial. To use an analogy, let us say there are two pies in front of us. One pie is America, and the other Britain. The pie representing America has a circumference of 5 feet and Britain’s’ pie is 1 foot in circumference. I am comparing the amount of internal power held by the countries to circumference of the pies. The president gets 33% of the 5-foot pie, and the prime minster gets 50% of his pie. The percentages of the cuts of pies refer to the amount of power the president and prime minster hold within their governments. The point of the analogy is that, even though the president has less power inside his government, his power still exceeds that of the prime minster when it comes to international issues.
Given a choice between serving as the president of the United States or as the prime minister of Great Britain, which job would you prefer? Why?
ReplyDeleteI definitely rather be president of the united states than the prime minister of Britain. In the presidential system I would serve both as the head of state and head of government as opposed to just being the head of government like the prime minister of Britain. I think that the president is more representative of the people, and is able to accomplish more individually with the help of their executive powers as opposed to a prime minister. There is a consistent back and forth with the parliament in the case of the Prime Minister that I see less frequently in the context of the Prime Minister. I think the US has a good system of checks and balances as to insure that there is no overarching extension of power. Also, a president can issue a military response with a "police action" unlike the Prime Minister that requires parliament's approval.
I can agree with your response because the President is empowered to make executive orders to push critical agenda items versus the Prime Minister who doesn't hold much authority outside of supporting the party. To have political parties that have a stable check and balance system would be an advantage of the Presidential system as well. in Parliament the confidence system that threatens dismissal is circumvented because parliament has control of when the elections take place unlike the american system of hosting elections on a fixed 4 year schedule. Controlling when the elections happen can lead to holding off on elections until the climate is more favorable to ensure they don't fail from voter dissatisfaction.
DeleteGiven a choice between serving as the president of the United States or as the prime minister of Great Britain, which job would you prefer? Why?
ReplyDeleteI had to choose between taking one of these two positions I would choose to become the prime minister of Great Britain. I would choose become prime minister because it seems as if the structure of the government system is less divisive unlike the presidential system in the United States. The textbook referred to the parliamentary system as being a swim together sink together swim together system due to the fact that the prime minister and the legislature are from the same majority party. I agree with the textbook that in the presidential system when the president and other members an officer from different parties it creates an environment of finger-pointing and leads often to a stalemate when it comes to policymaking. I also would choose to become prime minister since the term of office is not limited to two terms like it is in the presidential system I believe that sometimes we have great presidents you are making great policy changes that are limited to only two terms in office. It is for these reasons that I would choose to become prime minister over becoming president.
How does the power of the prime minister compare with that of the U.S. president?
ReplyDeleteThe power of the Prime Minister and the power of the U.S President are unique positions, but different. The U.S. President is elected for 4 years while the British Prime Minister is elected for 5 years. The American President's term of office is secured constitutionally: He cannot be removed until his term of office is finished for 4 years, unless impeached, but it is a very tough procedure. He continues in office as long they have support of the majority party in the House. Essentially a Prime Minister would leave office the second he loses support from the majority party. The Prime Minister cannot afford to lose support from the congress, but if the President loses support from congress it just makes it impossible to pass legislation. The British Prime Minister is always the leader of the majority party and can get the necessary legislation passed. In this respect he is more powerful than the American President. The power of the President is limited by the Constitution, and the power of the Prime Minister is limited by constitutional conventions. Both are powerful individuals.
The president is elected as the leader of the country, such as he or she is the head of state. Also, he or she runs the government; the president is also the head of government. The monarch is the head of state for the United Kingdom, so the prime minister is merely the head of government. Both the US President and the British Prime Minister occupies a unique position not only in their respective political systems but also in the world as a whole. The President is not responsible to the legislature for his acts, conducts and policies, whereas the Prime Minister is answerable and accountable to the House of Commons. The US President, moreover, does not guide the course of legislation, nor is he a member of the Congress. The British Prime Minister, on the other hand, is the leader of the House and actively participates in the proceedings for legislation. A Comparative Introduction, Hague and Harrop, pages 298-299, 311. There are a lot of differences between the U.S. President and the Prime Minister and I would have to conclude that the U.S. President has more power than the Prime Minister whose power is very limited.
DeleteHi Jake! I agree with your response. We can look at the political turmoil that has resulted from the last primary election. While the president attempts to surround himself with political confidants that will support his position, there are many currently operating within the majority party who staunchly oppose him and his agenda. Try as they may, it is unlikely that they will be able to actually remove him from power. If a PM loses majority popularity, he or she stands a greater chance of being booted from the job.
DeleteHow does the power of the prime minister compare with that of the U.S. president?
ReplyDeleteThe president of the U.S. is the Head of State whereas the prime minister is the Head of the Majority Party. While these roles have some similarities, there are many differences, too. The president of the U.S. has the power to exercise military power as the Commander-in-chief and leader of the executive branch. The prime minister, in comparison, does not share that responsibility. Additionally, the prime minister is elected as a representative of the majority party. He or she can be more easily eliminated from power by members of his or her party. The president of the U.S., on the other hand, is elected as an individual leader by the population through the electoral college. It is more difficult to remove the president from office as a result. There is a significant difference between the powers that the U.S. president and the prime minister hold over voting powers, as well. As Kesselman explains, “the prime minister can call for new election in effort to win a new mandate and a deeper majority in parliament” (p. 69). The U.S. president doesn’t share such responsibility, as the constitution requires that elections be held every four-years on a fixed basis.
• How does the power of the prime minister compare with that of the U.S. president?
ReplyDeleteThe power of the President and the Prime Minister are very different. I believe that both positions are limited in their own way. The president has the power veto, causing legislators to change the bill to better satisfy the president. The Congress also has the ability to override a veto, which limits the power of the president. The president is the head of state and government and has the power. The president has the power to declare war and sign treaties with the consent of the senate. Unlike the president, the Prime minister and Cabinet makes up the executive. The Prime Minister is head of the executive. both share power. There is no set term for the Prime minister and legislature can hold an election at any time if there is loss in confidence of the Prime Minister. I would say that the president is more powerful.
Hague & Harrop, Political Science: A Comparative Introduction ch. 16
How does the power of the prime minister compare with that of the U.S. president?
ReplyDeleteThe president is elected as the leader of the country, such as he or she is the head of state. Also, he or she runs the government; the president is also the head of government. The monarch is the head of state for the United Kingdom, so the prime minister is merely the head of government. Both the US President and the British Prime Minister occupies a unique position not only in their respective political systems but also in the world as a whole. The President is not responsible to the legislature for his acts, conducts and policies, whereas the Prime Minister is answerable and accountable to the House of Commons. The US President, moreover, does not guide the course of legislation, nor is he a member of the Congress. The British Prime Minister, on the other hand, is the leader of the House and actively participates in the proceedings for legislation. A Comparative Introduction, Hague and Harrop, pages 298-299, 311. There are a lot of differences between the U.S. President and the Prime Minister and I would have to conclude that the U.S. President has more power than the Prime Minister whose power is very limited.
Given a choice between serving as the president of the United States or as the prime minister of Great Britain, which job would you prefer? Why?
ReplyDeleteIf i had to chose between wielding the power of the US Presidency or the British Prime Minister i would chose the Prime Ministry. The Prime Ministers is more instrumental and powerful that the President if the position is held by the right person. The US president is held in balance by a congress and senate that more often than not do not agree with his/her political agenda. Stalemates are common in the presidential system since the government branches function independently of each other and often create strong opposition to change. Being the Prime minister will give you the ability to appoint ministers and cabinet chairs, arbitrate between departments, strong involvement with foreign policy, and ratify major decisions (Kesselman 68). The system used to vote in parliament who in turn selects a Prime Minister is a great method to be more inclusive of the population votes which keeps the Minister in line with the voice of his constituents. Even the fact that if i were to do a poor job the people have a mode of recourse to replace me is comforting opposed to the american system that isn't inclusive of minority parties and if a president loses the approval of his people they are still unable to remove him/her from office.
Is the British prime minister more powerful than the president of the United States, or vice versa? Is Parliament prime minister more powerful than Congress, or vice versa?
ReplyDeletePower is subjective and is reflective of more than just the position. Depending on the circumstance depends on which position would have more power. The ability to have a longer term in office lies with the Prime Minister there for the prime minister has more power to control their term length, but this can also be a drawback is a vote of no confidence can shorten that term. As the president when is guaranteed the four-year term limit and has the possibility of a second term for a total of 8 years. The true power lies in the prime minister's ability to stay and turn as long as they would like to be prime minister until they retire on their own terms.
Power also lies in the ability to create legislation. The president may propose an idea but does not actually create legislation. The Prime Minister doesn't create legislation either but may have a larger influence on the creation of legislation than the president, therefore, giving the Prime Minister more power in negotiations of legislation.
3rd power lies in the ability of the leader to cooperate on an international level. A leader like Trump would have less power than the British prime minister, but a leader like Obama would have more power than the British prime minister. Therefore, proving that power is more than just a position.
In terms of parliament versus Congress I would argue that Parliament has more power than Congress. Parliament is more about negotiation between parties and Congress is more about bipartisanship and only focusing on their party's agenda.
Also the Prime Minister represents the majority party in Parliament there for the Prime Minister has the backing of parliament making Parliament and prime minister more powerful than the president and Congress May have the same party leader in Congress as in the presidency.
How does the power of the prime minister compare with that of the U.S. president?
ReplyDeleteThat depends on how you we define power and what authority backs that power. Let’s define power as, “The ability or capacity to exercise your will to control [or influence] other people” [1], or “the capacity to bring about unintended effects” (Hague, pg. 11). Power can be exercised through coercion, or persuasion and consent.
For presidents in the US system, the primary conflicts are between the executive and the other competing branches of government, mostly over legislation, spending, and military commitments. The US president must share these powers with the other branches. Hague enumerates that sharing (pg. 301):
• the President is commander-in-chief, but the congress retain the power to declare war;
• the President requires ‘the advice and consent’ of the Senate to make government appointments and sign treaties;
• the President can recommend measures to Congress, but cannot pass legislation;
• the President can veto legislation, but Congress can override his veto;
• the President can’t allocate funds from the Treasury, but Congress can.
In order for the US President get anything done, he has to either ‘go to Washington,’ or ‘go to the public’ (Hague, pg. 302). In the first case, the President will try to persuade the Congress of the rightness of his/her policies and get them to voluntarily consent to pass them. When that fails, the President can use the Office’s bully pulpit through the media to indirectly influence Congress by influencing the public and inciting them to pressure Congress.
On the contrary, in a parliamentary system, the executive is organically linked to the assembly rather than being at odds with it. The Prime Minister is not “separate from the legislature and independently elected” (Hague, pg. 305). Hague further observes that, “if the paradox of presidentialism is executive weakness amid the appearance of strength, the puzzle of parliamentary government is to explain why effective government can still emerge in this mutual vulnerability of assembly and executive” (pg. 305). Hague also enumerates this relationship (pg. 305-306):
• The Prime Minister emerges from the assembly can be dismissed from office by vote of no-confidence, but the Prime Minister can disband Parliament by calling for new elections.
• The executive branch is comprised of a cabinet of about two dozen, in which the Prime Minister is traditionally first among equals.
• In a majority government system, like that of UK, the leader of the majority party becomes Prime Minister and selects 20 or so colleagues to form the cabinet. This is the linchpin of the system.
• Since the governing party spans the cabinet and the assembly, securing domination of the parliamentary agenda, the Prime Minister is much more effective at pushing policy matters through than the US President.
Both the office of US President and UK Prime Minister are equally powerful in their own right. Just how viable that power is depends upon the context in which it’s wielded, on whether the environment calls for an adversarial form of government or an inorganic one.
[1] Open Education Sociology Dictionary, http://sociologydictionary.org/power/
DISCLAIMER: This is an intellectual exercise, a college assignment. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the political views of the author.
Delete