Comparison between United States and Britains Political Economic Systems - Case Study Example

?Comparison between United s and Britain’s Political Economic Systems by s Macro & Microeconomics, Research Paper   30 May2013 Thesis: The concept of political economic systems in nations allows examiners to determine the control over goods, services and resources within the society and national boundaries at a particular time. The US and Britain demonstrate a number of differences and similarities that are brought out through the build up of power in both states. Britain has an unwritten constitution that facilitates quick changes, the people elect the house representatives only (of common), who in turn determine the British government, while the US has a written constitution and is dependent on the electoral college to qualify the president elect after electing legislators. The US government is divided into 3 branches that enable its separation of powers, distinguish the control and power the US president receives once elected, and that of the British prime minister who operates in an undivided government. The party systems of both the US and Britain have a common element of the two party system that impact differently on their governance. Constitution The original constitution in USA resembled a version of the former constitution of Great Britain that came with the colonists, who settled on American land with the hope of reforming the rule to avoid oppression that they experienced under the British system of government back then. A central government was hence formed from the alliances of the different states under a written and signed constitution in 1787 that guides in governing the US, and in its distribution of power (“A more perfect” archives.gov). The constitution hence takes the center place as a superior authority over the law of the land, from which the judiciary interprets in their regular reviews to make judgments based on the legislature, as expressed in the constitution. On the other hand, the British constitution remains customary and unwritten (lack a single constitutional document), such that though the constitution exists, it occurs in distinguishable documents (Williams 13). The sources of its constitution are fragmented into international treaties and agreements, the common law of judicial interpretation, statute law by parliament, and conventions. These differences in existence of the constitution influence their flexibility to amend their constitutions when need be. The lack of codification of the British constitution makes it more flexible and able to evolve with political circumstances, since all that is required is the majority of the parliament to make changes, while the US constitution can be termed as rigid in its codified manner, requiring two thirds of both the senate and house representative, and three quarters of the individual state’s legislature to amend it (Wlliams 13-4). Basically, the US constitution tends to involve different levels of authority from the national figure to all states power, which makes it difficult to change the constitution because of the embedded original idea of federalism. For example, the USA has had about 11000 amendment attempts since 1789, with only 27 being successful after 230 years (Becerra politifact.com) , compared to Britain that recorded numerous reforms affecting referendums, electoral, regional governments and house of lords activities within 1992 to 2001 (“Constitutional reform” historylearningsite.co.uk). The procedure in theUS is quite onerous and intends to prevent arbitrary changes to the original documents, which is extensive enough to allow participation of the relevant authority right from states to national levels that support efficient decision making without being politically biased. Electoral system The US and British elections are conducted by means of secret ballot, involve prior campaigns, and hold by-elections to replace vacant seats in the parliaments. However, there are numerous variations in requirements for electing individuals into branches of the government, in terms of age and the process to winning an election. The first difference is that US holds primary elections, where the delegates from a political party nominate a presidential candidate by acquiring majority votes , which does not occur in the British electoral system (Ethridge and Handelman 249). Because of these, the presidential candidate of the US and his chosen running mate are indirectly elected by the people, come the general elections. From the primaries, the candidate and the running mate have to campaign for their election into government against their opponents. This is quite different from Britain, where the president of the nation is a constitutional accepted monarch (king/queen). The candidates become presidents after acquiring majority votes from the Electoral College, who are in turn voted in by the qualified voters in each state. Hence, a candidate may acquire a majority vote after national tallying, but still that does not qualify him or her to be a president. The two elected US legislatures and the state electors pledged to the preferred candidates and the running mate or vice president are elected by the people from each state (as individuals with most vote). For example, if a republican presidential candidate wins the total votes in Ohio, it means all the electoral delegate votes from that state go to him or her, when all combined together from all states, the one with the majority becomes president and the running mate becomes the vice president. In the UK, the house of commons representatives are elected by the people from their constituencies, and the House of Lords is not elected, but rather appointed; since the British government is determined by the structure of the parliament, election of MPs is critical of the fact that the party with majority seats from the electoral constituencies raises the prime minister and forms the government (Williams 22). Just by the engagement of the population, the primaries and general elections in the USA improve the participation of individuals and representation of states in elections. The US electoral system lays a straight political course that prevents extensive discussions to reach a decision. The general elections for the US are held after every 4 years, with presidents running for 4 years with a maximum of two terms, senates are elected for 6 years, but staggered to two year terms to coincide with two year elections of house representatives, while in UK, the government and the house of commons is restricted to five years term (Darlingtone rogerdarlington.me.uk). Clearly, the house representatives in Britain act as both the elected assembly and government, which place responsibility on the party that has formed government. This adds on to the UK political and economical efficiency in running the government operations, by combining various functions to be performed by the same group. Separation of Power The US government powers are distributed among its three branches (executive, legislature and judiciary), who generally contribute to government functions related to discussing and passage of laws. In running the government, the president in the US acts as the head of state and government, while in Britain, the monarch is the head of state, while the prime minister holds the head of government. As an executive, the US president plays an enforcer role of the law by signing or rejecting the passed law. He does not have any influence to the Congress or House of Representatives. The British prime minister as the head of government influences the operations of the house of commons, since he or she commands the majority of votes, hence possible to enact various legislations with the support of the majority (Darlingtone rogerdarlington.me.uk). The US president and the British monarch play equal roles in delivering a state union address, which is a power separated from the British Prime Minister. For instance, the US president does not have power to call up new elections, due to the stipulated law in the constitutions, as the British prime minister can at a day of his or her discretion, make a decision that may favor his party or government to win, so long as the monarch’s approval is given. The senate as part of the legislative role has to confirm appointments by the US president in various key roles, while the Prime Minister in Britain appoints members of the cabinet without need for confirmation from anyone. Clearly, they both appoint most of their subjects based on partisan party and have the authority to dismiss these officials. The US legislature (senate and house representative) is people elected and deal with laws and their amendments. The senate plays certain similar roles as those of the House of Lords in Britain, in discussing, debating and making final votes for the changes to be signed by the president. Both the legislatures of the US and Britain can pass a bill into law by majority vote (2/3 of each house) to overrule president vetoes, with senate having more supervisory powers over investigations, impeachment by house of representatives, and in nominations though both can form agencies as investigative committees (“The senate”senat.fr). The British government is not divided into branches and though the House of Lords and Commons exist, there are quite more tasks to be handled by the House of Commons. Legislations are introduced to be discussed by members of congress, while in Britain, this is done by the government or individual house representatives (Darlingtone rogerdarlington.me.uk). An example of the power bestowed on congress to declare war is a power held by the prime minister in Britain. The judicial system in the US is highly controversial, and tends to be influenced by the political and presidential appointment to serve the republic. Some of these powers held by prime ministers and house representatives can be very oppressive to the other party minorities, and as a result, the decision may be reliant on a political party’s categorization just to steer the government, while forfeiting justice and better decisions from the minority. For the US, separation of power into different branches, and the head of state and government restriction from influencing decisions of Congress and legislatures make all the elected members responsible for the decisions reached and bills passed, even if without the president’s consent. More of participation is evident in official appointments by presidents to prevent bias and unconstitutionality, which also improves efficiency by selecting competent officials. Party System The common feature in the political party organization between the US and Britain is the presence of a two party system. In each nation, two main parties gain majority vote and government offices, not because there are no other parties, but because either they failed to secure enough positions in elections, or were absorbed to form the two main competitive parties. However, the two party system though reliant on majority rule creates separation of power to the formed government, such that in Britain, a parliamentary system is developed by fusing the executive and legislative power in the house of commons, while causing a single party to be in control of the white house and the other of the congress, due to the principle of the winner taking all (Fesnic 804). Another factor is that parties in the USA depend on primary elections for delegates to elect their candidate, who is later nominated to run for the presidency under the party label. Since Britain does not have primaries, the political parties hold individual conferences to discuss policy positions, but not the preferred candidate, since the criteria for electing such individuals varies in parties. Comparing the party alliances and discipline, the US political parties are loose coalitions, whose elected candidates can have varying stands on issues being discussed, while the British political parties are strict on the positions they adapt on issues promoted by candidates, which are easily accomplished when they are in majority as elected representatives (Darlingtone rogerdarlington.me.uk). For instance, it’s very practical to have elected representatives of Democrats and Republicans parties in US supporting a political issue, even if some of them do not belong to the majority in the house. In the sense that there are two politically competing parties, voters have well defined differentiated choices, while the parties distinguishably display their agenda and identify themselves without much struggle. The criticism on the part of the British party system can be said to have an effect of unified block voting; though supportive in maintaining the power, there is a tendency of inefficient representation of candidates, as they pass the law as the majority, and if some were probably given the option, they would vote in favor of it. There is a general tradeoff between separation of power and efficiency, but though the electoral system of Britain looks simpler, the US has better representation and participation in its political economic systems. Works Cited “A More Perfect Union: The Creation of the US Constitution.” archives.gov. n.d. Web. 30 May 2013. Becerra, Zavier. “Of 11,000 attempts to amend US Constitution, only 27 amendments have passed.”politifact.com. 29 July, 2011. Web. 30 May 2013. “Constitutional Reform 1990 to 2001.” historylearningsite.co.uk. n.d. Web. 30 May 2013. Darlingtone, Roger. “Contrast between the American and British American System.”rogerdarlington.me.uk. 12 Nov, 2012. Web. 30 May 2013. Ethridge, Marcus E. and Handelman, Howard. Politics in a Changing World: A Comparative Introduction to Political Science. 6th ed. Boston MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning Fesnic Florin. “Two Party System.” eu.pn. n.d. Web. 30 May 2013. “The Senate of the United State of America.” senat.fr. n.d. Web. 30 May 2013. Williams, Andy. UK Government & Politics. 2nd ed. Oxford: Heinnemann Educational Publishers, 1998. Print.     Read More