Hard as I try I still have difficulty understanding the dynamics of the US Federal political system. Variants on the British Westminster system no doubt seem complex to American’s, but they offer ‘checks and balances’, oddly enough some certainties, where the US seems to only offer trust.
There are two issues which bring this to mind right now. Britain, and Australia by extension, works on a principle of collective responsibility. That means cabinet (or the administration) as a whole are both legally and morally responsible for decisions and outcomes.
If one of their governments is faced with a backbench (ie: non cabinet government members) revolt, that is largely a party issue which will, at worst, block the passage of specific legislation. As Cabinet controls the agenda they can usually weather such embarrassments.
When cabinet itself divides then danger bells must start ringing for the leadership, their very job is on the line.
In the US, once elected, the leadership may be totally heedless of the rest of the system. Of course there is impeachment, but in a serious conflict a maverick president can do an awful lot of damage before he is relieved of duties. Even then the system has a built in reluctance to take that route.
Britain’s Tony Blair is currently facing down an unhappy cabinet. They can, quite legally, meet tomorrow and force a leadership vote and the Labour backbench would be right behind them. It is only a matter of political priorities and imperatives.
The other fascinating aspect of the US system, highlighted by the current round of primaries, is the lack of a dominant opposition leader.
The parliamentary system more or less entrenches visible alternatives to the incumbent. Depending on the character of the opposition leader, the position is highly visible and powerful. Britain and Australia have both been suffering from weak opposition leadership over the past few years, but even so, the alternative leader is designated and known.
In a presidential election year, when the front runners are determined, there is a clear choice. But there is often no real history of leadership performance. It is the mid terms which really show the problem the major parties have; where are the obvious leaders at the congressional level?
Okay, you are going to name a bunch of people who are house leaders or whatever, but where does the buck stop, as they say. These people are still just party functionaries in the system, powerful as their role might be, they don’t represent clear, unambiguous leadership, merely influence.
There are a few other issues which still intrigue me, but those two still give me enough to chew on for the moment.
6 comments:
That a government can be brought down without a dire event like impeachment is a great feature of the British system, in my opinion.
Another is proportional representation in parliament. I wish the US would adopt both of them. But of course, Americans believe we have the greatest system of government on earth, one that can't possibly be improved on.
Every system has its advantages, I just have trouble understanding how the US system works.
Obviously I do like the systems I grew up with, or at least understand them.
The US system works by pretending there are only three possible viewpoints - Democratic, Republican, and Crackpot.
I believe there is no opposition because the Dems are just another side of the same coin. They have to change the currency altogether.
Rom, you would have to say that of most democracies where the main parties colude to ensure one or the other rules.
The two party system is based on dragging the other down, as may be the case in a proportional representation system. But at least the latter must engage in compromise to a much greater degree (coalitions for example).
Post a Comment