Full Version: Parliamentary System
What are the disadvantages and advantages of the system of government in the United States (President and Congress) compared to the system of Prime Minister and Parliament?
If you could wave a magic wand and change the USA to a Parliamentary system, while keeping everything else pretty much the same, would you want to do so?
I particularly welcome comments from citizens of nations with a Parliamentary system.
If you could wave a magic wand and change the USA to a Parliamentary system, while keeping everything else pretty much the same, would you want to do so?
I particularly welcome comments from citizens of nations with a Parliamentary system.
I wouln't say that Parliamentary systems are intrinsically inferior or superior, just slightly different procedurally.
Britain has a bicameral parliament within a constitutional monarchy, where almost all the historic powers of the monarch have been devolved to the government of the day, either through convention or through actual legislation.
The British system is theoretically sound, but is seriously undermined by three or four things (most of which are closely related and intertwined):
1) Patronage; the Upper House, and the senior positions in public bodies, are largely appointed by the government.
2) The hereditary principle; the monarch, and the remaining hereditary peers in the Upper House, are inherited, and inherently undemocratic.
3) The established church; senior Church of England bishops are appointed not only by the church, but by the government. This compromises the church's independence of government. Not only that, but the same bishops automatically have a voting seat in the Upper House, compromising parliament's independence of the church. Also, all other denominations and religions are exlcuded from such automatic representation, which is neither fair on them, nor representative of the British people, who are overwhelmingly secular. (Fewer than 2 in 10 Britons regularly attend any kind of church or religious meeting.)
4) The royal prerogative; this power of the monarch is functionally devolved to the government of the day. It means that on many issues, they can choose to ignore parliament. It is a common criticism of Tony Blair that he does this, but it is only possible for him to do so because of the R.P.
I think that disestablishment of the Church, democratisation of the Lords, replacement of the monarchy with a non-political elected head of state, and the outright removal of the royal prerogative would cure all of these problems.
On the plus side, not having the very wide and forced separation of the government from the legislature, as in the US, does mean that the day-to-day business of government can be more collaborative where possible, and can certainly be scrutinised and challenged more effectively. It also means that an electoral mandate can be more effectively pursued.
For example, Clinton's attempted healthcare reforms would have stood a greater chance of implementation as a Prime Minister elected with the same hare of vote that he had would have found it easy to use his parliamentary majority to make things happen, instead of having to psuh against a hostile Congress. Equally, one with the slim majority that Bush would have found himself with would have struggled more to get support for the current war, or for any of his other pre-war actions (e.g. steel tariffs, avoidance of the ICC, rejection of Kyoto treaty, etc.). That's not to say he would have found it impossible, just that he would have had to make a more convincing case prior to taking these actions to gain domestic consensus, rather than making a weak one afterwards.
I don't think that either first-past the post parliaments or the US congressional system adequately represent current public opinion, especially minority opinion. In the US system, for example, Congress and government are often out of phase. Only rarely is there a Democrat president facing a Democrat Congress, or a Republican facing Republicans (Bush is lucky in that regard, but how well served and represented are the millions who didn't vote Republican?). On the other hand, when (like Clinton) there is a face-off, it seems that the President always loses.
At root I think this is less to do with the structure of the US government itself, and more to do with the voting system and the two-party domination of all political discourse. Some injection of diversity might improve slightly, instead of the current, seemingly automated rejection of anything proposed by the other side.
In the UK, this is pronounced only when parliamentary majorities are large. More balanced government seems to happen when consensus is required to get change through. The various forms of PR take this further, of course, but many of them sometimes seem paralysed by the endless horesetrading to try to get to consensus.
Britain has a bicameral parliament within a constitutional monarchy, where almost all the historic powers of the monarch have been devolved to the government of the day, either through convention or through actual legislation.
The British system is theoretically sound, but is seriously undermined by three or four things (most of which are closely related and intertwined):
1) Patronage; the Upper House, and the senior positions in public bodies, are largely appointed by the government.
2) The hereditary principle; the monarch, and the remaining hereditary peers in the Upper House, are inherited, and inherently undemocratic.
3) The established church; senior Church of England bishops are appointed not only by the church, but by the government. This compromises the church's independence of government. Not only that, but the same bishops automatically have a voting seat in the Upper House, compromising parliament's independence of the church. Also, all other denominations and religions are exlcuded from such automatic representation, which is neither fair on them, nor representative of the British people, who are overwhelmingly secular. (Fewer than 2 in 10 Britons regularly attend any kind of church or religious meeting.)
4) The royal prerogative; this power of the monarch is functionally devolved to the government of the day. It means that on many issues, they can choose to ignore parliament. It is a common criticism of Tony Blair that he does this, but it is only possible for him to do so because of the R.P.
I think that disestablishment of the Church, democratisation of the Lords, replacement of the monarchy with a non-political elected head of state, and the outright removal of the royal prerogative would cure all of these problems.
On the plus side, not having the very wide and forced separation of the government from the legislature, as in the US, does mean that the day-to-day business of government can be more collaborative where possible, and can certainly be scrutinised and challenged more effectively. It also means that an electoral mandate can be more effectively pursued.
For example, Clinton's attempted healthcare reforms would have stood a greater chance of implementation as a Prime Minister elected with the same hare of vote that he had would have found it easy to use his parliamentary majority to make things happen, instead of having to psuh against a hostile Congress. Equally, one with the slim majority that Bush would have found himself with would have struggled more to get support for the current war, or for any of his other pre-war actions (e.g. steel tariffs, avoidance of the ICC, rejection of Kyoto treaty, etc.). That's not to say he would have found it impossible, just that he would have had to make a more convincing case prior to taking these actions to gain domestic consensus, rather than making a weak one afterwards.
I don't think that either first-past the post parliaments or the US congressional system adequately represent current public opinion, especially minority opinion. In the US system, for example, Congress and government are often out of phase. Only rarely is there a Democrat president facing a Democrat Congress, or a Republican facing Republicans (Bush is lucky in that regard, but how well served and represented are the millions who didn't vote Republican?). On the other hand, when (like Clinton) there is a face-off, it seems that the President always loses.
At root I think this is less to do with the structure of the US government itself, and more to do with the voting system and the two-party domination of all political discourse. Some injection of diversity might improve slightly, instead of the current, seemingly automated rejection of anything proposed by the other side.
In the UK, this is pronounced only when parliamentary majorities are large. More balanced government seems to happen when consensus is required to get change through. The various forms of PR take this further, of course, but many of them sometimes seem paralysed by the endless horesetrading to try to get to consensus.
It sounds to me, Julian, that most of the issues you raise are orthogonal to a parliamentary system vs. separation of powers. I also grew up under a parliamentary system, in New Zealand, but the things that seem to make the most difference are (a) a small, unicameral legislature and (
multi-party proportional elections. Either difference could coexist with a separation-of-powers structure.
Overall, I tend to favor parliamentary systems. The legislature is better able than the executive to represent the (possibly fractured or ambivalent) will of the people, and IMO that justifies its primacy over the executive. In the US system, the president's power to take action is limited but within the limits of those powers there's almost zero accountability until the next election - the worst of both worlds. A president that actually had to report, on a daily or weekly basis, to a body that was more representative than he is of the people's will would IMO be a good thing.
multi-party proportional elections. Either difference could coexist with a separation-of-powers structure.Overall, I tend to favor parliamentary systems. The legislature is better able than the executive to represent the (possibly fractured or ambivalent) will of the people, and IMO that justifies its primacy over the executive. In the US system, the president's power to take action is limited but within the limits of those powers there's almost zero accountability until the next election - the worst of both worlds. A president that actually had to report, on a daily or weekly basis, to a body that was more representative than he is of the people's will would IMO be a good thing.
Platypus - "ORTHOGONAL"?? 
MY! That's a BIG word. I didn't have to look it up, but it did make me think:
a) I'm glad that I had the benefits of a classical education, at least at times like these
With words like that on the thread, no wonder it has only three posts. Sheesh!
You're right though, my beefs with the British parliamentary system are largely to do with separation of powers - inextricably linked to the status (or even mere presence) of the constitutional monarch.
Without these sticking points, though, I think the UK parliamentary system would be somewhat better in both functionality and accountablity than the US Congressional republican system, for the reasons you cite.
MY! That's a BIG word. I didn't have to look it up, but it did make me think:
a) I'm glad that I had the benefits of a classical education, at least at times like these
With words like that on the thread, no wonder it has only three posts. Sheesh!You're right though, my beefs with the British parliamentary system are largely to do with separation of powers - inextricably linked to the status (or even mere presence) of the constitutional monarch.
Without these sticking points, though, I think the UK parliamentary system would be somewhat better in both functionality and accountablity than the US Congressional republican system, for the reasons you cite.
But at the same time, one could argue that the constitutional monarchy is the best form of government. Ideally the monarch serves as a ralying point, a symbol of the state, and isn't required to interfere with the democratic process at all. In a nation with such democratic traditions as the U.K., why should we be concerned that the democracy is only practical, not formal. This is the kind of distinction made in dictatorships around the world which maintain formal democracies, but no real choice. I would believe that we have gone beyond that. In additoin, because of the power given the monarch, constitutional monarchies have more flexibility in times of crisis. Are we to give all that up for a mere formality?
Certainly, although I would say that most of my objections to monarchy are not conceptual, but stem from the precise constitutional position of the monarch within the UK parliamentary system, most particulalry the ability of the government (which is not directly elected, but selected from within the elected members in the majority party) to exercise the crown prerogative on behalf of the monarch.
I also have objections to the hereditary principle for selection of the monarch, and would prefer to see elected monarchs, more akin to the Celtic or Anglo-Saxon ideas than the Norman idea of primogeniture. Any noble was eligible for selection as monarch by their peers, subject to qualifying criteria (e.g. being likely to be any good at it). With such a limited electorate, this was subject to corruption and nepotism, but updated to include the whole electorate, might be a workable idea. Especially if political party membership is a barrier to entry, deleting the nightmare scenarios of a President (or King) Blair or Thatcher; while still allowing for President (or King) Charles Windsor.
Maybe if we ever get around to anything like this, and I don't believe I will see it in my lifetime, you can have the Windsors as hereditary consitutional monarchs in Canada if you still want them.
I also have objections to the hereditary principle for selection of the monarch, and would prefer to see elected monarchs, more akin to the Celtic or Anglo-Saxon ideas than the Norman idea of primogeniture. Any noble was eligible for selection as monarch by their peers, subject to qualifying criteria (e.g. being likely to be any good at it). With such a limited electorate, this was subject to corruption and nepotism, but updated to include the whole electorate, might be a workable idea. Especially if political party membership is a barrier to entry, deleting the nightmare scenarios of a President (or King) Blair or Thatcher; while still allowing for President (or King) Charles Windsor.
Maybe if we ever get around to anything like this, and I don't believe I will see it in my lifetime, you can have the Windsors as hereditary consitutional monarchs in Canada if you still want them.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.