Like presidents, modern prime ministers can generate different political resources through these different roles and the techniques required by them. At the same time and in similar fashion to presidential politics, prime ministers are increasingly monitored and assessed according to criteria that are quite different to those experienced by senior colleagues, also like Presidents a modern day prime minister is often voted in due to factors that have nothing/ little to do with their political agendas, for example in 1997 Tony Blair
It also means that members of Congress are not elected on a joint mandate as members of a prospective government, as would be the case in a parliamentary system, but to represent the interests of their districts and states, and on a separate mandate from the president. However it can be argued that this hinders the system as the president only has limited influence over Congress, and this creates the potential for gridlock and contributes to the weakening of parties. So if the president is a different party than Congress he has hardly any power which is concerning considering the president is head of state and should therefore have the most power. On the other hand it can be seen as a positive, since legislation is the product of compromise and consensus and it is therefore better founded than, for example, legislation whipped through the House of Commons. To conclude it helps the system in a way that it stops there being a dominance of one person or party which is good in a way that the parties have to find compromised and there want me dictatorship.
Since the subordination of the monarchy under parliament and the increasingly democratic methods of parliamentary government, there has been the question of whether parliament holds a supreme ability to legislate and whether it should or should not. Devolution is the transfer or delegation of power to a lower level, especially by central government to local or regional administration; it involves a large degree of self-governing and directly elected national assemblies. The passing of power to
Some supporters say that a state should have more power than the federal government and then there are others who say the Federal government should be the ruling body alone. You have a central government that functions to keep the country working as a unit, but also works to keep the states from encroaching on individuals and becoming too intrusive. The same works for states. The states have a lot of control over what their citizens should be subject to. For example, criminal laws, property laws, contract laws...etc are decided by the state, not the federal government and they aren’t allowed to govern those areas.
Majoritarian democracy is a democracy based upon majority rule of a society's citizens. Countries such as the UK, USA and Canada operate on the basis of representative democracy where the people vote for representatives who then decide policy initiatives. Other countries such as Uruguay, Switzerland and Latin America operate on the basis of direct democracy where people decide upon policy initiatives directly. Source A suggests that the people (voters) are sovereign and what that they have the final say whereas Source B suggests the opposite in that the people feel “politicians are failing and disconnected from the British people”. Democracy means “power to the people” and Source A suggests that this is what is happening and the people are happy with the voting system.
Is Cabinet Government Dead? Cabinet government is a system of government in which executive power is concentrated in the cabinet, which is made up of heads of government departments, who exercise collective responsibility. Traditionally, within government the Prime Minister is ‘primus inter pares’ or ‘first among equals’ which reinsures the fact that he is a minister, not a president, of which some Prime Ministers may seem to appear. The cabinet fulfils many functions, these may have changed overtime but the principle functions include making policy decisions. Overtime, the role of the cabinet may have increasingly been seen to be less and this may have changed peoples’ perception on the system of government used in the UK.
"Parliament is subject to the elected dictatorship of government." How far do you agree with this view? This is a serious problem that has occurred form the type of constitution that we as a country have upheld. Elected dictatorship can only be in practice if the Government has the majority of the seats in the Commons. This Governmental style has been used in the recent year in the form of Thatcher, Blair and Brown all of who practised this in some degree to get what they wanted.
'The separation of powers in a presidential democracy ensures better government than parliamentary democracies' fusion of power.' Discuss. Presidential democracies possess a separation of powers in that the executive and the legislature exist independently and hence 'the government does not depend on a legislative majority to exist' (Clark, Golder and Golder, 2009). This is in contrast to the fusion of powers in parliamentary democracies, which is a government 'directly controlled by the legislature' (Clark et al, 2009) and hence dependent on a legislative majority in a way presidential democracies are not. The statement alludes to the 'mutual independence' and 'mutual dependence' (Stepan and Skach, 1993) that characterises presidential democracy and parliamentary democracy respectively to suggest the former creates better government.
It can be argued that the UK constitution is too flexible. The lack of clearly defined roles (separation of powers) means that theoretically an electoral dictatorship could occur. For example in 1997 Tony Blaire’s government passed a series of laws without any difficulty. Devolution, human rights act and freedom of information were all acts set by the priminister and his cabinet (the executive) which went relatively unchecked by the opposition (legislative). This demonstrates how a lack of separation of powers/checks and balances would only come about from and uncodified/flexible constitution.
An unwritten constitution is where a country follows constitutional conventions rather than follow a specific legal document. This constitution can be made up of several different written laws, but at its core, it is simply enforced through common practice and may not be applicable in court. Within a liberal democracy, the government acts to support liberty and equality among the nation such that citizens are equal in their political decisions to free and fair elections (Bollen, 1993, p. 1209). Also minimal government interference impedes their views, which is protected by human rights and freedoms outlined in a constitution (Bollen, 1993, p. 1210). With two distinct forms of constitutions it can be seen that a written constitution is more conducive to the liberal democratic tradition as it limits the government’s ability to amend the constitution arbitrarily to their needs.