Compare and contrast the extent to which the PM and president are accountable to their respective legislatures?

A further way in which the PM can be held accountable to his respective legislature, is through select and standing committees scrutiny. Standing committees look at the detail of a government bill, and may put foreword amendments. Many MP’s see their most important work as MP’s is on select committees. Select committees allow backbenchers to undertake investigational work, and their findings often prompt the government to act on an issue. Often these committees have a considerable degree of expertise, as they are important in providing scrutiny of the PM. For example, Bruce George, has sat on the defence select committee since 1979. Increased media coverage of select committee proceedings, such as at the time of the Hutton enquiry, has brought the spotlight on to the PM making him accountable for his actions.

In the US, as stated before, congressional committees play a major in holding the president to account. One further way a senator or congressman can do this is by voting in his/her respective houses. If they decide to vote against a presidential bill, such as they did in 1995 with Clinton’s budget, then they can effectively hold him to account, forcing him/her to make amendments. The unique separation of powers, creating, effectively “separate institutions sharing power” means also that senators must also ratify the president’s judicial appointments. The rejection of Robert Bork, by the senate during the Regan administration, shows effectively, the legislature holding the US president to account. Unlike in the UK, as there is no powerful whips, then there is arguably more of an incentive to hold the executive to account for its actions. In the US, the president who is the nominal head, cannot threaten any member of the legislature with expulsion from the party, ot any oher heavy handed sanction like in the UK. As members of congress, are not worried about upsetting the executive, rather more concerned with the “folks back home.” Thus, many argue they are in a better position to hold the president to count, compared with the UK system.

In both the UK and US, the member’s of the legislature can hold the PM/president to account by initiating a piece of legislation. This may have the effect of highlighting inactivity on behalf of the PM or president. For example, a backbench MP in the house of commons, can initiate a private member’s bill, perhaps gaining support, and forcing change in a certain area. For example, private member’s bills have achieved success in areas which the PM does not want to be directly associated with, for example social reforms such as abortion or homosexual reform.  In the US, legislation from congress can also paly a big part in holding the president to account. For example, when the republicans gained a majority, they set about legislating a “Plan for America” in order to combat the economic downturn during some Clinton years. Whereas members of the US legislature often have considerable success with their legislation, hostile tactics in the commons and lords in the UK, such as filibustering, imposition of the guillotine, combined with the government whip make success with PMB’s very hard to achieve.

In conclusion, both the PM and president can be held accruable to their respective legislatures to a certain extent. In my opinion the UK PM is in a stronger position legislatively, as he has the majority support in the commons, the chief legislating body. He exercise complete control over backbench MP’s through extensive controls, such as the whip system not available to the president.