British and American Political Systems - Essay Example

Running Head: BRITISH AND AMERICAN POLITICAL SYSTEMS British and American Political Systems of the of the British and American Political Systems There are different political systems in the world varies from free democracies to dictatorial governments. Of these, however, two in particular stand out. These are the presidential system of countries such as the United States and the second one is parliamentary system of countries such as the United Kingdom. In actuality there are many similarities between these two systems. Each, on the other hand, is also distinctive from each of the others. It is these comparisons and contrasts, which will be the topic of this essay. We are taught this in the reading of books and the watching of television programs from the west. The best ways are by comparing different political systems of societies from different geographical locations. Since the traditional and cultural values of each society are different, the thinking and the way of life would be very different if compared to one another. (Rabb, 2003, 45-57) Therefore, a political system to one society is likely to be different if compared to another. At the same time, western society might be unfamiliar to the ways of the eastern society and vice-versa. Sometimes as time passes, there develops new theories of new political systems by great thinkers. So we see one political system being changed to another. (Harman, 2003, 99-105) This proves that it's impossible to take just one time frame as different political systems developed at different time lines. In each society they have adopted to a mutual understanding of what's right and what's wrong. (Rabb, 2003, 45-57) For example: Howard Becker suggests "social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labelling them as outsiders." (Harman, 2003, 99-102) Therefore at times, we see revolutions that bring about a whole new political system, even though sometimes althea promises that was to come with the new system vanishes somewhere. Politics cannot be pinned down to a single aspect of life, it occurs throughout society, it involves every aspect of our lives, but it is especially concentrated in the modern nation state. It is the nation state that "establishes sovereign jurisdiction within defined boundaries...the state commands ultimate power in that it stands above all other associations and groups in society; it's laws demand the compliance of all those who live within its boundaries." (McWhirter, 1994, 36-42) In politics there is a phrase that says, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely'. What it means is that everyone who comes by political power becomes corrupted morally from the opportunities that this power brings with it. This really applies to most people since they shape their morality in line with social pressure. In other words, at first they are scared of society's disapproval and punishment and therefore avoid immorality, however, when power makes them strong, it decreases social pressure and as a result they become corrupted. (Rabb, 2003, 45-57) Religion is undoubtfully a big influence in society but it has declined in countries like the US and UK in the past century. Capitalism is thought to be behind the reason for the decline in organised religion in the US and UK. Each of the three political systems noted above is a type of democracy. The exact nature of that democracy can vary considerably however. In 1996 an estimated 117 countries were on record as being democracies (Sussman 1996, 118-125). Even in countries as similar as the United States and Great Britain this is often the case. The way the United States views representative democracy varies in some ways from the way this concept is viewed in the United Kingdom. This variance is obvious in numerous aspects of government, especially in terms of overall governmental structure. Democracy is indeed a grand and glorious concept, which has been pursued by countries around the world. To these fledgling countries, countries like the United States and Great Britain stand out as example of what can be. The United States in particular is heralded the world over for its democratic process. It is particularly interesting to now that this system evolved from what our founding fathers had already experienced in Britain. (Rabb, 2003, 45-57) The United Kingdom has a significantly different political system than what would ultimately be decided on in the United States. It is a system, which is perhaps best, understood by examining the concerns of the United States when they sought to free themselves from British rule. When the framers of the Constitution of the United States met in Philadelphia in 1787 for the constitutional convention they had already lived under a Unitary system and a Confederation system of government and knew the advantages and disadvantages of each system (Tannahill and Bedichek, 1991, 157-163). The American colonies under British rule was an example of a unitary system of government where all political power was held by a single national government or in this case, the king (Sussman 1996, 118-125). All the colonial governments were created by the British Parliament and only had the degree of power of government, which Parliament elected to allow them to have (McWhirter, 1994, 36-42). The political system, which exists in Britain, was undesirable from the framers of the American Constitutions standpoint because it was not flexible enough to allow for different local situations, which would occur in different localities throughout the colonies (Tannahill and Bedichek, 1991, 157-163). Proponents of the unitary system stated that it provided consistent government throughout the colonies and was more efficient when handling situations that were common to all colonies (Tannahill and Bedichek, 1991, 157-163). The framers of our Constitution wanted to protect the right of the people to have local control over their government but wanted a capable system of government. They designed a federation system where neither national or state governments would get their power from each other but from a constitution which applied to both provided that each would govern the people directly with their own set of laws and people working for them, both would be the ultimate power within their established realm and each would have to be agreeable to a process of changing the Constitution (McWhirter, 1994, 36-42) Central to the political system which currently exists in the United States is the electoral process. Under the Electoral College large, medium, and small states alike are rewarded with the same number of electoral votes as they have members in Congress. No state, therefore, could have less than three electoral votes, two for each of its two senators and one for every Representative it has. Since all states have at least one representative in the house this equates to a minimum of three electoral votes per state. This system is periodically criticized, as has been observed in the 2000 Presidential election, because it fails to represent the popular will. In reality, however, the electoral process was never intended to represent the popular will. The electoral process is just one more element of the extensive system of checks and balances provided for by our founding fathers. There are many more as well which are notable. To provide for a system of checks and balances in the national government the framers divided the duties of the government into three sections. The first section is the legislative division which is charged with making the laws, the second is the executive division which enforces the laws passed by the legislative division and the third is the judicial division which interprets the laws passed by the legislative division and determines if they are legal according to the constitution (Tannahill and Bedichek, 1991, 157-163). This system, in combination with the electoral process, would become the equivalent of the Nation's central nervous system. It would regulate just exactly what our government could and could not do. While also a democracy, Great Britain operates under a parliamentary system of government. Great Britain and the United States differ in the way their representatives are placed in office, in their nominations, majoritianism, and electoral systems. (Rabb, 2003, 45-57) There are also numerous similarities, however. These two countries are similar in that they have a two-party political system with tight party cohesion and discipline. Although the United States is slightly more diligent in this regard, both countries have a deeply ingrained belief in populism, a political philosophy that the needs of the common people should be addressed and their rights protected. Where a large percentage of Great Britain's executives attain office as a matter of societal privilege, the people vote most U.S. representatives in. Another difference in the two countries is that in the United States there is more accessibility of governmental institutions to interest groups, this accessibility accounts for a considerable portion of the laws and regulations which are on the books today. Perhaps one of the greatest differences in Great Britain and the United States, however, in terms of their views on democracy is that Great Britain has no singular written constitution. Some portions, derived from laws passed by Parliament and old documents like the Magna Carta, of the constitution are written but much of what forms the "unwritten constitution" of Great Britain is comprised chiefly of ideas and practices that have come into common acceptance over the years. (Rabb, 2003, 45-57) The basic premises of democracy are the same in both Great Britain and in the United States. Neither democracy is a pure democracy where all citizens meet to formulate laws and rules. Instead both governments practice what is referred to as a representative democracy in which individuals are elected by their fellow citizens to serve in the passage of laws and other governmental matters In the United States one body of these elected individuals form what we know as our congress. The Great Britain equivalent of our congress is the parliament. It is these two bodies, which comprise the legislative power of the two countries. In the United States there are three branches of government: legislative, executive and judicial. In Great Britain the equivalents are the House of Commons and the House of Lords although the House of Lords representatives are not elected, instead they obtain office as a hereditary right, associated with their titles. It is the House of Commons which is the real governing body. Its members are elected by general election in which all the people are allowed to vote. There is one member of the House of Commons elected for each constituency. (Harman, 2003, 99-105) Like the United States, Great Britain has a two-party political system. Their equivalents of the Democrats and Republicans are the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. The two-party system has proven to be effective in both the United States and in Great Britain. They are numerous reasons that the two party political systems has persevered in these countries. These reasons include economic factors as well as societal and issue-related factors. They are both structural and historical and they exist both internally and externally (Minnesota Daily, 1998, 5A). Although technically Great Britain is a monarchy, the Queen has executed no real power as does our President and his or her corresponding executive branch of government. Although Great Britain's Queen must technically approve all Parliament approved bills prior to their passage into law, this is a mere formality since no monarch has rejected a bill since the 1700s. The Queen is responsible for the appointment of the Prime Minister who, in turn, selects the various heads of government, a portion of whom comprise the Cabinet. As opposed to the federal system of the United States government, a system that developed with the union of the states and where legislative power is shared between state and federal government, Great Britain has a unitary system of government. In the unitary system the state and local governments were created by the central government rather than the other way around. In the United States the government operates under the premise of Separation of Powers. (Harman, 2003, 99-105) These powers are separated between the three branches of government. The Senate holds the powers of the President and of the executive branch in check. In Great Britain the executive and legislative branches are united. While the prime minister and the members of cabinet are the top executives they are also members of Parliament and are thus directly controlled by Parliament. In Britain, unlike in the United States, the judicial branch cannot overrule either the prime minister or Parliament. In the United States the Supreme Court can challenge both the President and Congress. There are, therefore, key differences in the three types of political systems discussed above. One of the primary differences in these systems is the concept of separation of powers and the link between the chief executive's term of office and that of the legislature. There are also key differences in the way government officials such as the president, prime minister, and legislature are put in office. In spite of the fact that these two systems reveal an interesting cross section of political systems across the world they are only three of many. While there are similarities there are also subtle differences in just these two systems. Indeed, there are practically as many differences in political structures throughout the world as there are countries. References Rabb, Theodore, Et.al. (2003) The Making and Unmasking of Democracy: Lessons from History and World Politics. Routledge, London, 45-57 Harman, Chris (2003) Analysing Imperialism. International Socialism, London, 99-105 Governing Systems and Executive-Legislative Relations. (2000). Governing Systems and Executive-Legislative Relations: Presidential, Parliamentary and Hybrid Systems. http://magnet.undp.org/docs/parliaments/governing%20system.htm McWhirter, Darien A (1994) Chapter One: Introduction, The Separation of Church and State. Exploring the Constitution Series, 36-42 Minnesota Daily. (1998). Three-party politics weakens democracy, University Wire, 5A Sussman, Leonard R. (1996). More Democracies, More Violations, Editor & Publisher, 118-125 Tannahill, Neal and Bedichek, Wendell M. (1991) American Government Policy and Politics Harper Collins Publishers, Inc, 157-163 Read More