The United States Form of Government and that of Britain - Research Paper Example

? Contrast between the US form of government and that of the UK Contrast between the US form of government and that of the UK The United States and the United Kingdom are two diverse conglomerate of nations in the globe. The US has a constitutional republic and federal form of government while the UK employs the constitutional monarch-parliament form of governance. In view of this, US citizens elect the head of state together with other representatives into office. They perform their duties as government officials under the code set out in the US constitution. On the other hand, the UK has its monarch acting as the head of state; however, supreme authority is not vested unto the monarch because there is a separate head of the government elected by the people who exercise political powers. Just like in the US, these leaders espouse a set of laws found in the constitution (Storey, 87). This paper discusses the different between government systems of the US and the UK, as well as other countries referring to three articles. 1. Szilagyi, Ilona Maria. "Presidential versus parliamentary systems." AARMS Vol. 8, No. 2 (2009): 307–314. Notably, the founding fathers who wrote the US constitution had the British political system to draw on; however, they avoided any form of concentrated power that resembled the monarchy because it is one of the chief things that they rebelled against. Nonetheless, there are a few similarities between the two political systems. Both the British and the US forms of government have a head of state, upper and lower house, and a court system. The two have constitutions that depict the rules for government as well as the rights their people have. Both political systems are democratic in nature; there are firm checks and balances in place to inhibit the power of any one branch. Both governments can be put in place and can be removed from power depending on the will of the people. The president in the US political system is the legitimate head of state elected as part of the Electoral College (Watts, 312). United Kingdom have the King or Queen as the legitimate head of state while the prime minister handles political matters and is the legitimate head of government. Officially, UK’s head of state signs off any act of parliament and delivers the Speech from the throne written by the prime minister. In most modern governments, the monarch plays the part of a ceremonial figurehead thus it is atypical for members of the royal family to directly get in the way of the country’s political process. The upper house in the US is the Senate while the UK has the House of Lords. Each state under the US system of governance, despite the size, has two senate members. Before, the governor of the state used to appoint senators but these days they get to be elected by the people to serve 6-year terms. The House of Lords is quite different. They are not elected by the people. In addition, the House of Lords appoint 792 members basing on inheritance, or their title in the Church of England (Harris, 231). They are never elected and cannot be removed from office by popular vote. Nonetheless, they serve the same purpose as the US senate (Szilagyi, 310). They debate, discuss and vote on legislation passed by the lower house in the legislative branch. The British House of Commons and the US House of Representative draw on a lot of similarities. Each house comprises representative elected by the people. Control of the lower house is given to the party that carries the most number of seats. Under the UK system of governance, the party with majority members produces the prime minister who is then the party leader becomes the Speaker of the House. Elections are also different in the two forms of government. The prime minister under the parliamentary system can go to the crown and ask to dissolve the parliament at any given point. Thereafter, an election would follow. An election would also be eminent if the Prime Minster lost the confidence of the house. 2. Mcquire, Kimberly A. "President-Prime Minister Relations, Party Systems, and Democratic Stability in Semipresidential Regimes: Comparing the French and Russian Models." Texas International Law Journal Vol. 47: (2009): 428-453. The chief difference between presidential and parliamentary systems of government is that the president in a presidential system is distinct from the legislative body, but the chief executive (prime minister) in a parliamentary method is a component of the parliament or legislative body. The legislative and executive functions of the government are separate in a presidential system of government. The presidential system offers checks and balances to contain the power reserved for legislative arm and the executive, who is the prime minister in this case. The legislature in a parliamentary system holds the instruments of power; the chief executive is answerable to the legislature. The other main difference is legislative members and chief executive in a presidential system are elected by the people separately; nonetheless, people governed by the parliamentary system elect the legislature who then has to recommend or appoint one of its members to become the chief executive (Mcquire, 443). The president in a presidential system of government acts both the head of state and head of government. As the head of government, the president supervises the operations of the government by fulfilling certain duties. The president can also appoint advisers and officials to help in running the government. The roles of the president comprise represent the country at national events, making speeches and many others. In parliamentary systems of government, the roles of the head of government and state are held by distinct people. For instance, a country can have the prime ministers whose role is to the lead government and monarch. Other countries utilizing the parliamentary system of government have the president instead of a monarch (Williams, 238). A country with both the president and prime minister is at times believed to have a presidential system. Another disparity between the two systems of government is in the effects that each of the system harbors on things like political acrimony and efficiency. The president and the legislature can be controlled by different political parties in presidential structure because the members of the legislature and the chief executive are elected disjointedly. This can create discord at the highest levels of government thus making it impossible for the legislature and the executive to attain their respective goals. The prime minister in the parliamentary system of government is usually from the political party which controls the legislature. Here, there will be less discord thus the party can easily fulfill their respective goals. 3. Grotza, Florian and Till Webera. "Party Systems and Government Stability in Central and Eastern Europe." World Politics 64 (4) (2012): 699-740. Presidential republics that have a full presidential system like the US are different from semi-presidential systems like in South Africa and executive presidency in France that is connected to a parliament. The presidential system of government is characterized by the office of president. The role of the president is to be the CEO and the head of government. The president and the legislature are elected differently. However, the powers of the president are mostly balanced against those possessed by the legislature (Grotza and Till, 703). The legislature in the American presidential system has to debate and pass several bills. The president can veto the bill though thus inhibiting its adoption. However, the legislature can override the veto power of the president if they can gather enough votes. The American president harbors the most powers when it comes to foreign affairs. Also, the president may deploy the American military in any situation but does not have the authority to pronounce war on a nation. In a presidential system of government, the executive branch is present and can preside differently from the legislature. On the other hand, the chief executive and the head of state in parliamentary systems are two distinct offices. Many a times, the head of state duties are in a ceremonial manner while the chief executive acts as the head of the country’s legislature. The most known parliamentary system of governance is Britain. The head of state functions have been given to the royal family while the chief executive is instilled in the parliament. In most parliamentary systems, there is a apparent distinction between the head of state and government. The head of government is the prime minister while the head of state can be a president or a monarch. Countries like New Zealand and Australia who gained independence from Britain have no royal families thus the queen of England is the figurehead of the constitutional democracy. Democracy students have divided the parliamentary democracies into two, the consensus and Westminster systems (Woolf, 112). The Westminster systems is mostly found in Commonwealth nations although not exclusively. Such parliaments appear to have an adversarial debating style. Some examples of this include the UK, India, and Canada. Countries like New Zealand and Ireland use proportional forms of representation. The differences in most parliamentary and presidential systems of government come in the styles of debating and the election of the Chief executive. To conclude, the chief difference between presidential and parliamentary systems of government is that the president in a presidential system is distinct from the legislative body, but the chief executive (prime minister) is a section of the parliament or legislative body. The legislative and executive functions of the government are separate in a presidential system of government (Dignam and Galanis, 112). The presidential system offers checks and balances to contain the power of both the legislature and the chief executive, who is the prime minister in this case. The legislature in a parliamentary system holds the instruments of power; the chief executive is answerable to the legislature. Works cited Dignam, Alan J. and Michael Galanis. The Globalization of Corporate Governance. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, 2009. Grotza, Florian and Till Webera. "Party Systems and Government Stability in Central and Eastern Europe." World Politics 64 (4) (2012): 699-740. Harris, Nathanial. Systems of Government Monarchy. Evans Brothers, 2010. Mcquire, Kimberly A. "President-Prime Minister Relations, Party Systems, and Democratic Stability in Semipresidential Regimes: Comparing the French and Russian Models." Texas International Law Journal Vol. 47: (2009): 428-453. Storey, William. US Government and Politics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007. Szilagyi, Ilona Maria. "Presidential versus parliamentary systems." AARMS Vol. 8, No. 2 (2009): 307–314. Watts, Duncan. Understanding American Government and Politics: A Comparative Guide. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004. Williams, Andy. UK Government & Politics. London: Heinemann, 1998. Woolf, Alex. Systems of Government Democracy. Evans Brothers, 2010. Read More