Comparison of Australian, US and GB Political System - Essay Example

182706 Compare and Contrast the Australian political system with that of the United s and Britain. What are the similarities and differences?Which do you believe is the best system? Why? Detailed below is a comparison of the Australian political system with the contemporary political systems of the United States and Britain. This comparison will contrast all of the similarities and differences within the United States, British, and Australian political systems. The comparison will demonstrate the perceived strengths as well as the weaknesses of the Australian, United States, and British political systems. After each of the three political systems has been examined opinion as to which country has the best political system. Although the opinions presented will be personal ones, arguments, as well as evidence will also still required to effectively back them up. At first glance the present Australian political system owes a great deal of its style, format, and above its content to the British political system.1 Britain has had a very strong influence upon the Australian political system as Australia was a British colony, and remains a dominion with the British monarch as its Head of State.2 Having close links with Britain, as well as having a British Head of State means that the Australian political system undoubtedly has more in common with the British political system than the United States political system.3 The Australian legislature just like the British one it was modelled upon is called a parliament, instead of being known as a Congress. Australian legislation as with British laws has to receive royal ascent before it can be put into affect. Not only does the Australian Parliament have much in common with the British Parliament; the political party system is very similar. That similarity is probably increased by the electoral systems in Australia and Britain leading to general elections being dominated by two main political parties rather than several smaller parties. The first past the post system frequently means that a single political party forms the government despite only receiving a minority of the popular vote. In Australia the Labour party competes against the Liberal party, whilst in Britain the Conservative party is opposed to the Labour party.4 The Australian Liberal party is actually very close to the British Conservative party in terms of ideological outlook. However, the Australian Labour party differs from its British counterpart by having a leadership that has strong republican tendencies. Support for Australia becoming a republic increased throughout the 1980s and the 1990s. The Labour Prime Minister, Paul Keating even held a national referendum over the issue, in which the majority of voters supported the Queen remaining Head of State. Further referendums over Australia becoming a republic appear highly unlikely whilst John Howard remains Prime Minister. Should Labour regain power the issue might go to the top of the political agenda again. 5 In both the Australian and British political systems the real executive powers are held by the respective countries Prime Ministers provided that their party hold a parliamentary majority. British governments with a small majority such as the Callaghan government of the late 1970s and the Major government have generally struggled to rule the country effectively.6 The Prime Minister is usually the leader of the largest political party within parliament, following a general election, whilst in Britain they are chosen by the monarch.7 It is unprecedented for the Governor General or the monarch not to appoint the leader of the largest party.8 In both countries general elections are used to elect the legislative and the executive Head of Government at the same time.9 In the Australian political system, parliament is regarded as having full sovereignty.10 In Britain it has also been used to argue that the House of Commons held full sovereignty.11 However, the country being a member of the European Union has reduced British sovereignty.12 In the Australian and British political systems the judiciary have not been fully independent of the executive, with parliament. The sovereignty of the British Parliament has been arguably diluted further by devolution in Scotland and Wales.13 In Britain and Australia any Prime Minister that holds a large enough parliamentary majority has a great deal of political power.14 The United States president does not have unrestricted powers, and how much power any individual president can use depends upon the strength of their party within Congress.15 Congressional elections are held every two years, meaning that the position of the president can be strengthened or weakened during the middle of their term in the White House. It is harder for a Republican president if Congress is controlled by the Democrats or vice versa. For instance, the majority of post-war Republican presidents have had to cope with Democrat controlled Congresses.16 Mid term Congressional elections therefore are intended to prevent the President from becoming too powerful, yet are also seen as a test of presidential popularity. Both the Republicans and the Democrats keenly contest congressional elections, as well as all of the American presidential elections.17 The way in which the president is elected through the electoral college procedure means that each state puts its quota of votes into the college for the candidate with the highest votes.18 Electoral college votes are weighted according to the population of each state, with the largest states having the greatest number of votes to be won. The electoral college generally elects the most popular presidential candidate, yet on rare occasions the least popular candidate wins.19 The electoral college was developed before universal adult suffrage was introduced and it was intended to prevent radical candidates gaining the presidency. Although the president was given the power to veto Congressional legislation, that veto could be over turned by a two-thirds majority of both houses of the Congress. The president did not have the power to halt Congressional and presidential elections, Congress has the power to impeach the president if a two-thirds majority vote in favour of doing so, which would have happened to Nixon, yet did not happen to Clinton. The United States Supreme Court also has the power to decide if either the president or Congress has broken the political and electoral rules set out in the American constitution. The Supreme Court is also responsible for passing judgement on disputed election results, most infamously in Florida during the presidential election of 2000. The Supreme Court after a great deal of wrangling decided to declare George W. Bush the winner, making him the president. The Supreme Court is meant to be politically neutral yet has the potential to influence the United States political system.20 The Australian and the United State political system used to differ quite considerably from their British counterpart with regard to the political as well as the constitutional structure of their countries.21 Both the Australian and the United State political system were established as federal states rather than been a unitary state like Britain.22 There were various reasons as to why a federalist constitution was adopted in the Australian and the United State political systems.23 The United State was formed by the former British colonies that already had a tradition of having their own assemblies prior to independence.24 The founders of the United State regarded federalism as the best way of governing their new country.25 Federalism was adopted, as part of the Australian political system because the British believed that was the best way of administering such a large country effectively. The British also preferred federalism in their colonies or dominions, for instance in Canada as well as in Australia.26 Meanwhile, Britain without a written constitution had a unitary political system, as a consequence of how its political system had evolved over the centuries. The political establishment did not favour Federalism in case it jeopardised the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom itself.27 As the United Kingdom consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales there were those that believed that federalist structures would be better than the unitary system that actually operated within the framework of the British political system. Changes to the constitutional framework of Britain occurred after New Labour became the government in 1997. New Labour granted devolution to Scotland and Wales. Whilst the Good Friday Agreement meant that devolution was restored to Northern Ireland. It would probably be more accurate to describe Britain as not having a con-federal structure rather than a federal or unitary framework.28 The best political system of the three compared above in my opinion is that of the United States. The Australian and the British political systems are very to each other, mainly because Australia was a British colony. There is scope in these political systems for corruption, as well as allowing political parties to keep power for sustained periods of time. The United States political system on the other hand has the checks and balances within it to reduce the opportunities for corruption and abuses of power. The American system is not perfect but no political system could be completely perfect. Bibliography Comfort N (1993) Brewer’s Politics, a phrase and fable dictionary, Cassell, London Coxall B, Robins L & Leach R (2003) Contemporary British Politics 4th edition, Palgrave, London Crystal D, (2007) The Penguin Factfinder, Penguin, London Madgwick P, (1994) A new introduction to British Politics, Stanley Thornes, Cheltenham Moran M, (2005) Politic and Governance in the UK, Palgrave, Basingstoke Nugent N, (2003) The Government and Politics of the European Union 5th edition, Palgrave, London Spiller J, Clancy T, Young S, and Mosley S (2005) - The United States 1763 – 2001 Routledge, London Ward G, (2003) The Rough Guide History of the USA, Rough Guides Ltd, London Whitaker’s (2007) Whitaker’s Almanack – Today’s world in one volume, A & C, London Young H, (2003) supping with the Devils – Political writing from Thatcher to Blair, Guardian Books, London Read More