Comparison of United States and British governments

The politics of the United States and the United Kingdom have been closely tied since the 13 American Colonies established their independence from Great Britain in 1776. The United States created a written constitution to protect itself from tyranny and an overly powerful government, yet the citizens were largely of British descent, and created a system of government with many similarities to that of Britain. Since World War I they have been very close allies, holding a "Special Relationship" and their politics and policies have evolved together, yet for all their similarities there are still key differences in the politics of the two countries.

Constitutional foundations

The Constitution of the United Kingdom is uncodified in the sense that there is no single document setting-out how the country is to be governed, but instead a variety of different sources spanning eight hundred years. The British Constitution consists of acts of parliament (notably the Magna Carta and the Act of Settlement), the laws and customs of Parliament and parliamentary conventions, case law and the writings of constitutional experts such as Bagehot and Dicey. The Constitution may be modified by Parliament as with any other law: simply by obtaining majority support in both Houses of Parliament followed by Royal Assent.

The British Constitution rests on two basic principles: the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty. [http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=ITOF "The British Constitution Now." The Economist (US) 323.n7759 (May 16, 1992): 119(2)] General OneFile. Gale. Gould Academy. 9 May 2008 ] In addition, the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union means that the UK applies all European Union law (and disapplies any provisions of its own which conflict) that it passes in common with other member states. [See the European Court of Justice cases of "Van Gend en Loos" and "Costa v. ENEL", and the "Factortame" litigation in the House of Lords.]

The American Constitution, on the other hand, is defined by one set document. The constitution clearly defines three branches of government, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. The powers of these branches are clearly stated, as are their limitations. A system of checks and balances is also established, and the process for future amendments is clearly stated. The simplicity of the constitution makes the American government more clear and balanced, but it also does not allow the fluidity and openness of the British system.

President v. Prime Minister

The prime minister of the United Kingdom bears the title of head of government, and as the chief executive is the de-facto holder of many of the powers that are assigned as royal prerogatives, such as the role of commander in chief of the armed forces. The prime minister is not elected in a direct election, and is instead is the leader of the political coalition that holds a majority of seats in parliament after a general election. Because the prime minister comes from parliament they are effectively both the head of the executive and legislative aspects of the British government. The prime minister is therefore in many ways a very powerful figure, but it can be a challenge to define the true extent of his powers because there are very few codified documents relating to the prime minister. The unwritten constitutional conventions that enable the prime minister do not limit his term length, and his power and the duration of his stay in office are essentially dependent on his ability to keep the House of Commons content. [ [http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/UKgovernment/Politicalpartiesandelections/DG_073242 “Central Government and the Monarchy”] Directgov. (Accessed 5-12-2008)]

Where the role of the prime minister is vague in the uncodified British constitution, the role of the president is explicitly spelled-out in the second article of the American constitution. The president acts as the head of the executive branch of government. He has many of the same powers as the prime minister, acting as commander-in-chief and being in charge of the bureaucracy, but is more limited as he is not a member of Congress, and does not necessarily share the same party as the majority in Congress. This discrepancy can make it a challenge for the government to accomplish much, in comparison to the unitary government of Britain, but is part of the American system of checks and balances that was created to keep the public safe from an over powerful government.

Congress v. Parliament

The Parliament of The United Kingdom consists of two houses, the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The members of the House of Commons are elected in a general election, with each constituency electing one member of parliament (MP). The House of Lords consists of hereditary peers, those with hereditary titles, and life peers, those who have been granted nobility but do not have a hereditary title. The House of Commons is the more powerful house of Parliament, because it is elected by the people, and creates and passes legislation. The House of Lords reviews and revises all bills, which is a very useful aspect of the process as many of the lords in the modern era received their title for excellence in a field, and they can bring a greater depth of knowledge to the legislative process.

The Congress of the United States is also a bicameral system with a House of Representatives and a Senate. Each state gets a number of seats in the house of representatives based on their population, while each state gets two seats in the senate. The two houses both work to create legislation, and for a bill to be passed both houses need to agree on the final draft. A majority vote in both houses is necessary to pass a bill, and they can override a presidential veto of a bill with a majority of two thirds.

Contrasting judiciaries

.In the United Kingdom there are three different legal systems, each of which originally had the House of Lords as its court of final appeal. In England and Wales and in Northern Ireland there is a system of common law, or a system in which law is established by judgments of previous cases. In Scotland the system is basically a civil law one, but with elements of common law. Consequently many of the laws in parts of the UK which use a common law system are established not by the parliament in a legislative process, but by the rulings of appellant courts. Though the judiciary is very powerful in this respect, it does not have the power to overturn acts of parliament because of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. The highest court in the UK has always been the House of Lords, but the 2005 Constitutional Reform Act established a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom to take over the legal responsibilities of the house of lords to establish judicial independence. [Tomkins, Adam. "The rule of law in Blair's Britain.(former British Prime Minister Tony Blair)." University of Queensland Law Journal 26.2 (Dec 2007): 255(37). General OneFile. Gale. Gould Academy. 9 May 2008]

In the United States the judicial branch of government is established by the third article of the constitution. The judiciary in the US does not have the power to make laws through their rulings in the way that the courts of Britain do, but instead are charged with interpreting the constitution, and the laws created by legislators. The Supreme Court of the United States also has the power of judicial review, which allows them to declare laws created by Congress, or actions of the president, to be unconstitutional.

Federalism and devolution

The United States is based on a system of federalism where power is shared between the state governments and the federal government. This system reflects the founder's fear of an overly powerful centralized government, but also their belief that local state governments could better meet the needs of their citizens than a federal government creating laws for all citizens. This is a system that has become more prominent in the United Kingdom as there have been separate parliaments established in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales. These parliaments deal with local issues, but the laws of the United Kingdom's Parliament still apply throughout the Kingdom. [ Leeke, Mathew. “An Introduction to Devolution in the UK.” House of Commons. (Accessed 5-12-2008)]

Elections

General elections in the United Kingdom are the process by which members of the House of Commons are elected, and also establish who will be prime minister. Terms of parliament can last for no more than five years, yet the prime minister can call for general elections at any time before this, and may choose to do so at a time when it would politically favour his party. In the elections every constituency votes for one seat in parliament, and most voters vote solely on party grounds. The one seat constituency system has tended to perpetuate a two party system in the United Kingdom, as it can be hard for third parties to win a significant number of seats in parliament. The prime minister is chosen through general elections, as he is the leader of the party that has a majority in parliament. [ “General Elections and European elections.” Directgov. ( Accessed 5-12-2008)]

In the United States there are separate elections for the president and rotating elections for Congress. Elections in the US are on a set schedule that is defined by the constitution, and the president is elected every four years through an electoral college system, where a candidate gets electoral votes by winning states. Congress is elected, as in the UK, through single seat districts on a rotating schedule that has elections for various congress posts every other year.

Political parties

In both the United Kingdom and the United States single member districts have perpetuated a two party system, making it challenging for third parties to establish themselves. In the United States the more liberal Democrats compete with the more conservative Republicans, and in the United Kingdom politics are dominated by the Conservative Party and the Labour Party; however, the Liberals, and their modern successors, the Liberal Democrats, are no longer the major power they were in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Although they remain fairly well established in Britain, they no longer match the other parties in power. ["The development of political parties in Britain. (Context)." Modern History Review 14.1 (Sept 2002): 21(1). General OneFile. Gale. Gould Academy. 9 May 2008]

Civil liberties and rights

Civil liberties and rights in the USA and the UK are very similar in that they were both created for liberal democracies. In Britain, they have only been clearly outlined in the past decade or so with the incorporation of the UK Human Rights Act (HRA) and the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). Previously, citizens remained “free to do anything that had not been legislated against under a system of negative rights.” [Fairclough, Paul. "Civil liberties in the UK and the USA: how do the UK and the USA protect the civil liberties of their people, and how effective are the measures that are put in place? Paul Fairclough reviews the key issues.(US UPDATE)(Freedom of Information Act)(United Kingdom. Human Rights Act 1998)(United Kingdom. Freedom of Information Act 2000)." Politics Review 16.3 (Feb 2007): 10(4). General OneFile. Gale. Gould Academy. 9 May 2008] The HRA was outlined using many of the same articles from the European Convention on Human Rights which took place in 1950; the right to life, liberty and security, fair trial, family and private life, and freedom of expression were all included. The HRA is the closest thing Britain has to America’s Bill of Rights, and it has worked to enhance the protection of individual rights in a similar way.

The Bill of Rights, however, has much more legal status than the HRA does because it is integrated into the U.S. constitution. That means that it is above regular law while the HRA is about equivalent, and can be changed with the same amount of ease. The Bill of Rights offers several of the same inalienable rights as the HRA, such as: freedom of speech, right to privacy, right to a fair trial, life, and liberty. It also consists of the freedom of religion, right to an attorney, right to bear arms, freedom of assembly and petition, and protects against cruel and unusual punishment. These are all privileges in Britain as well, but they are inherent rights not written anywhere specifically and thus much more malleable. In the US the Bill of Rights can be checked by judicial review, but in the UK the HRA is subject to suspension, amendment, or being repealed all together if it is challenged, while the inherent rights are taken case by case.

Domestic policy

In the UK

After World War I, as the Labour Party struggled to obtain a majority in the British Parliament, they had ambitions of instituting a nationalized economy, including key industries, while trying to create a more equitable society; both became a reality shortly after World War II. In more recent years with the emergence of various prime ministers, the nationalization was an apparent failure and domestic policy was headed for a controversial change towards the privatization of industry. Privatization was successful in saving the British economy by cutting inflation short and providing new jobs for the unemployed. Under Tony Blair, there was no intent to revoke any prior reforms towards privatization, and instead furthered the effort. The Bank of England received the “power to set interest rates without consulting the government” [Hauss, Charles. Comparative Politics. (Thompson-Wadsworth 2005)] which led directly to a decrease in national spending. Some schools and parts of the London Underground were privatized when they were losing money, and more Conservative policies were introduced like the reduction of several different government grants. However controversial these newer policies are, even the critics can agree that they did a great deal to strengthen the British economy, and those in power “used the levers of State Power quite effectively in producing one of the most dramatic policy changes in modern British History.” [Hauss, Charles. Comparative Politics. (Thompson-Wadsworth 2005)]

In the U.S.

Policy within the United States has been one of the most controversial matters for every presidential administration. Issues involving domestic security and the economy are the most prevalent. The September 11, 2001 attacks sparked new legislation which seemed to invade on some of the nations civil liberties to protect the nation as a whole. The attacks also impacted the economy severely and the administration George W. Bush has been struggling ever since to replenish it by making tax cuts, increasing employment, and decreasing deficit spending. Education is another front where the president has attempted to adopt policies to better the public, like the No Child Left Behind Act which aims to close the achievement gap in public schools and has been endorsed by both republicans and democrats. Issues such as healthcare, energy, capital punishment, and civil rights and liberties have all been defining the policies which successive incumbents have had to battle over the years, and still today.

Foreign policy

The United States was once a focused application of Britain’s foreign policy before the American Revolutionary War. Colonization was a priority of the British government, but after the decolonization efforts put forth at the end of World War II, the UK saw much of its empire fade away, and has “sought to redefine its global role” [Hauss, Charles. Comparative Politics. (Thompson-Wadsworth 2005)] ever since. Recently, the greatest policy issue facing Britain is how to handle the rapidly unifying continent of Europe, whose economy has essentially been integrated with the introduction of the euro. The UK abstaining from the European Monetary Union (EMU), and adopting the euro, has isolated the country more from the rest of Europe than they already were geographically. Many British companies and corporations currently use the euro to conduct business in and it can also be withdrawn from nearly any bank. The ability and necessity for using a uniform form of currency is there, but the motivation is lacking. There is no immediate intention to join the EMU for a variety of reasons, though eight or nine years ago it was a serious consideration. Blair had listed five economic conditions to be met by the EMU, and if they were he would support the euro and hold a referendum on its behalf. The British economy was doing so well at the time that there would have been significant short term costs for adopting the new currency , meaning the referendum would have a low probability of passing.

The revision of the EU constitution is another issue still plaguing Britain. The second draft, as it is, would unify Europe as if it were one country with one European President. This idea has faded in the shadow of a newly proposed treaty, produced by the German government, which would essentially do the same as the revised constitution and unify Europe. There are currently twenty-seven members, of which Britain is one, but it is too soon to tell whether or not it will be ratified, or what the final provisions will be [Hauss, Charles. Comparative Politics. (Thompson-Wadsworth 2005)] .

When it comes to war, Britain has backed the US in nearly every decision in the past few decades. They were involved in the Gulf War of 1991, and backed president Bush as he invaded Iraq after 9/11. The UK has had a long standing relationship with the United States and Blair supported them through false claims of weapons of mass destruction and while in front of the United Nations. The US entered Iraq out of retaliation for the events on 9/11 and it was beyond the 150th time the US has entered an armed conflict. Back before World War I, the policy was to abstain from continental European affairs, but after substantial U-boat attacks on the shipping industries, involvement was recommended. In World War II the States again tried to steer clear of conflict, but was forced in by the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor, which subsequently led to the declaration of war on the Axis powers. With a few exceptions, the US policy on war has generally been to abstain until forced involvement.

The US founded NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) at the end of World War II, where there is an alliance system of collective defense [ [http://www.nato.int NATO official website] ] . NATO was originally a political association, but quickly turned into a military alliance in the quake of the Soviet Union and the Cold War, thought no military action was necessary. Members of NATO back each other up when one is attacked by an outsider, making it a formidable force, and a supportive and idealistic union to be a member of.

ee also

*Canadian and American politics compared

References