The US, British, and Japanese Government Systems - Coursework Example

Differences between the US Presidential System and Japanese Parliamentary Cabinet System The discussion on whether countries should adopt a Presidential system or a Parliamentary system of government has elicited a lot of debate for a long time now. Therefore, my paper seeks to set out the differences between the two by clearly explaining how they work and eventually show the merits and demerits of the two. My paper also seeks to address issues, policies, structures and systems attached to the two systems. It also seeks to compare the presidential system of the U.S. and Britain’s parliamentary system. In addition, it seeks to address the problem of voter turnout in the U.S. and its possible causes. I find the topic important because many debates on the subject have been misinformed, if the debaters have not intentionally avoided facts while validating their arguments. The two systems work differently, even though at some point differentiating them may be hard because of the dynamism of their nature. A Parliamentary Cabinet System is a process in which manifestoes work as guidelines for political parties. The system gives an opportunity to the party (or coalition of parties) that wins an election, and with a majority in parliament, to form the cabinet which is entrusted with the duty to implement the policies in the manifesto, and with assistance of bureaucrats. However, even though the Japanese subscribe to the system, they tend not to worry about manifestoes, therefore, making no effort to adopt the same.1 In Japan, prominence is given to the respective ministries in which bureaucrats are entrusted with policy-making and other processes up to implementation, a duty which is limited to their respective ministries. The Presidential system of the U.S. presents a situation whereby the three branches of government namely; executive, legislature and judiciary. One interesting thing is that all the branches share power. The President is directly elected by the people and has no mutual dependence on the legislature. In sharing of responsibilities, all the three branches have a say policy formulation and implementation, thereby making them to act as checks and balances to one another.2 Institutional Design and Policy-making Process Just like Britain Japan subscribes to a parliamentary system of government. Under this system the fate of the Prime Minister and the legislature are in the same boat in which wreckage affects the two and successful voyage translates to happiness for all. This factor controls the actions of the two for or against each other, and forces them to work together even in times of sharp differences. In a Presidential system, on the other hand, has a mutual independence between the executive president and the legislature. Here the two sail on different boats and wreckage in one rarely affects the other. In such a situation, the possibility of blame game and political stalemate is relatively high.3 The policy-making processes differ in the two systems. In Japan, like in other countries with almost similar systems like Nigeria, the process highly depends on not only personal relations but also informal connections. These two also affect the implementation of the policies. In the US, congressional committees play a big role in policy-making and implementation. The parliament only has little chance to take part in the process, and this comes in the executive. This, therefore, gives a big chance to the policy communities as well as civil servants.4 Parliamentary System and Presidential System In the US, the presidential elections are held at a different time with the legislative ones, and the two have different powers, independent from each other’s. This is unique in the sense that many countries fuse the authorities of executive and the legislature. This is evident in Japan and Germany. These countries have their executives (prime minister and chancellor respectively) elected from people already in parliament. The executive thereafter doubles as prime minister and a member of the house.5 In the presidential system, there is a tendency by the legislatures to guide their autonomy. The legislature hides behind its constitutional powers to not only stipulate its agenda but also forward proposals for policy, disrespect presidential orders and even make the president lose his job. The president needs to cleverly use their persuasive power to win the support of the legislature even if their party has the majority in the house; a factor opposed to forcing their ideas on the legislatures. In parliamentary system, the legislature is used as a platform for heated debates. However, the fierce nature of the debates don’t give a true picture of the real situation since the legislative thinking is not independent, and may be out to paralyse the operations of the government.6 The parliamentary system leaves no room to the Prime Minister with no choice but to work extra hard to enlist the majority support to be assured of not only getting the office but also staying in it. Failure to do this may see both him and the government see their early exit. This puts the system vulnerable to uncertainties, thereby giving way to no fixed time of elections, which comes as a result of a threat of the possibility of vote of no confidence. Untimed elections may also happen as a result of the prime minister’s overconfidence that may make them call election if they feel they have sufficient support in the house. This may be a scheme for getting a new mandate and maintaining majority in the house. In the US, the presidential system provides independence between the legislature and the executive. The two plan their own time for elections and political responsibilities. Stalemates are key occurrences, leaving the president with a lot of confidence against impeachment. 7 Limitations of the Parliamentary Cabinet System in Japan The system has got a structure with dual power which comprises of both the ruling party and the cabinet. The cabinet enjoys most of the powers of the ruling party, who also set policies for lawmakers in the party. This gives room for mischievous deals among the party legislatures. The deals include insensitive decision-making based on the selfish interests of politicians in the ruling party. Again, the system serves to leave the prime minister weak because irrational interests of their allies. Japan also has informal power structures, further compounding the ineffectiveness of its parliamentary cabinet system.8 The Low Voter Turnout in the US It is a shocking revelation to learn that US voter turnout in the past a few decades has been less than 56% of the registered voters. Many people have tried to look into the factors affecting voter turnout in the US and explanations have been put forward. Some of these explanations include a low rate of car ownership among the youth, making it difficult for them to access polling stations. Some also believe that there are slim chances of their votes making a difference, arguing that the more the number of voters the less the impact of one vote. There is also the high cost of acquiring information on voters, voting procedures, candidates and politics. Another factor is the two-party system, which puts competition between only two candidates, who, in their campaigns subscribe to defensive politics, which is not appealing to many. The two-horse race also, in most cases, leaves voters with little interest when they realize that a candidate already has an advantage over the other9. Conclusion Both the Presidential and Parliamentary cabinet systems have unique roles to play in the governments in which they are practised. However, I find the presidential system more appealing as it leaves no room for misuse of power case the executive enjoys a massive support among the legislatures. It is also more democratic and transparent since, as a shared power system, it three branches of government cannot go out of their ways due to the checks and balances available amongst them. However, as I have noted above, both systems have their strong points and none ought to be taken for granted, especially today’s complex world. Bibliography Bearwald Hans, and Bearwald Hans, Japan’s Parliament: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. 89. Peter F. Cowhey, Structure and Policy in Japan and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. 28. Kato Hideki, Rebuilding Japanese Politics by Establishing Self-governance in Political Parties, History Journal, 30 (October 2009, Tokyo Foundation). Ellis Kraus, and Benjamin Nyblade, “‘Presidentialization’ in Japan? The Prime Minister, Media and Elections in Japan,” British Journal of Political Science, [Database on-line]; Available from irps.ucsd.edu/assets/004/5361.pdf Mark Kesselman, Joel Krieger, William A. Joseph, “Introduction to Comparative Politics: Political Challenges and Changing Agendas,” (London: Cengage Learning, 2009) 28-75. United States: The Low Voter Turnout Factor, (Washington, 2 October, 1998) [Database on-line]; Available from www.sunsonline.org/trade/process/followup/1998/10020898.html Read More