After reading the fourth chapter, I have came to my own conclusion that, in one point of view, the prime minister wields to much power. In general practice, if a majority government or a coalition government is in place, then the Prime Minister can present a bill with little or no adequate objection to stop its passage. The opposition can only voice it but would not have the power to stop it. There is, typically, no judicial review that would even be able to object to a bill or its passage, and in some parliaments they are free to override the courts as they see fit. The other houses of the legislature cannot override the upper house, and also members in the same dominant party cannot exactly risk to go against the Prime Minister (experience and prestige is required). In many cases, the states/provinces/ect cannot even stop measures from happening.
This doesn't show the same degree of checks and balances as you see within American Federalism. Also, there is a lack of separation of government branches. The Prime Minister leads the upper house of the legislature, which successfully combines the role of legislature and executive through the Prime Minister, giving the Prime Minister an uneven hand in power. However, to be fair parliamentary government when being led by majority, or coalition is very similar to unified governments in the states.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The last sentence raises an interesting point ("unified government" is sometimes called "party government" for exactly that reason). Would you move on from there to make the case that the recent prevalence of divided government is good for the American political system?
In terms of checks and balances, divided government would be a better form of government. It would force cooperation between the two branches and the two parties.
However it lacks what unified government can achieve, which is efficiency in government and passing legislation. However, to go along with the philosophy of the founding fathers, this efficiency might induce a form of tyranny. And to be fair to the parliamentary system, it does have a system to check the power of the government. The people in the long run can put an end to a reign of one power by electing a new one.
Post a Comment