• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
Page
  1. 1
    1
  2. 2
    2
  3. 3
    3
  4. 4
    4
  5. 5
    5
  6. 6
    6
  7. 7
    7
  8. 8
    8
  9. 9
    9
  10. 10
    10
  11. 11
    11
  12. 12
    12
  13. 13
    13
  14. 14
    14
  15. 15
    15
  16. 16
    16

In liberal-democratic political systems, which type of executive offers greater scope for democratic accountability: a presidential executive or a prime-ministerial/parliamentary type?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

In liberal-democratic political systems, which type of executive offers greater scope for democratic accountability: a presidential executive or a prime-ministerial/parliamentary type? Over the course of this essay firstly I intend to describe the relationship between the electorate and the executive in each political system, then to bring the aspect of accountability into the argument. It is necessary to define exactly what is meant by democratic accountability. Democratic accountability is visible in the modern era in three ways. Firstly it can be seen by the extent to which newly elected executives implement the policies laid out in their election manifesto. Secondly it can be measured in the ability of the electorate to remove an executive from office if these promises are not being kept. Finally it is exhibited in the accountability of the executive in a legal context by way of a judiciary or an independent organisation set up to review specific events. When analysing the scope for accountability within the presidential system the main area of interest is the relationship between the President and the legislature. Primarily I intend to focus on the American presidential system although useful examples can be drawn from other democratic systems. A President is given more individual powers by the state than a Prime Minister. When the population directly elects the President it can be said that this is a major reason for the powers of governance they receive such as commander in chief of the armed forces. ...read more.

Middle

The crucial difference is the make up of the rest of the executive, known as the cabinet in parliamentary systems. The prime minister as in presidential systems selects the cabinet. However he is only able to select members of parliament that have been won their seat via the election process. This mean that the electorate has to some extent the ability to influence who the cabinet will be made up of. In reality it is often the case that leaders will put potential cabinet ministers in 'safe' constituencies where their election is guaranteed. The executive, as in presidential systems has to have policies ratified by the legislature before they can be implemented. In reference to the cabinets requirement to gain ratification of tax reforms from parliament "the tax imposers are sure to quarrel with the tax requires." (Bagehot:1992:67) This could lead to the adaptation of the reforms to fit the views of the publicly elected legislature, which is in the interests of the electorate. Conversely it could lead to a situation of gridlock seen in the American presidential system. Here the electorate can be seen to be missing out in a similar way to the American electorate due to the fact that the blame for poor policy execution can be laid at the door of the legislative as a whole. The parliamentary system has one major advantage in this respect as the cabinet can threaten the legislature with dissolution if progress is not being made. ...read more.

Conclusion

An example of this in the American presidential system is the case of Donald Rumsfeld v. Jos´┐Ż Padilla & Donna Newman. This case is regarding the legality of holding 'terrorist' prisoners in a manner that breaks principle human rights laws in Guantanamo Bay. In the UK issues are rarely referred to the judiciary. This is principally due to the lack of a written constitution. In Germany and the Netherlands the judiciary is stronger and plays a greater role in the regulation of the actions of the legislature. To conclude I have come to the conclusion that the epitome of democracy, and therefore democratic accountability is a parliamentary system with a proportionally representative voting system. Although slower, progress made in the multi party systems is more representative of the views of the electorate. This is because members of different parties have to come to equally agreeable decisions that are more representative of the views of the electorate as a whole. "All members of the coalition have an incentive to co-operate if they do not want the government of the day to fall. In these circumstances democracies with four, five or six parties in the legislature can function quite well." (A. Stepan, C.Skach 1993:20) Parliamentary systems also give a clearer picture to the electorate of the processes of discussion of the legislature. This in turn means that when an election is called the electorate is able to exercise their democratic right to remove those responsible for not best representing their interests. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level United Kingdom section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level United Kingdom essays

  1. Comparison of the US President and British Prime Minister.

    policy appears to spark the interest of Parliament, shown by the quality of debates on foreign issues.

  2. Does Britain have a Prime Ministerial or Cabinet Government?

    The idea of appearing as a presidential figure above ordinary policy was first adopted by Thatcher and later by Blair. Johnson a political writer in the 1980s identified some of the methods used by Thatcher to promote a presidential image of herself.

  1. Does the UK have a Prime Ministerial government?

    It could be argued that there is a correlation between the power of the prime minister and the parties size of majority in parliament for example Blair initially was a very strong prime minister operating under a strong majority in parliament going undefeated in parliament until after the 2005 election

  2. How effective is Parliament as a check on the executive?

    Another argument in support of Parliaments weakness is that MP's lack the time, expertise and resources to be effective against the Government. Whitehall contains thousands of civil servants - people employed within a Government department who serve the crown. The senior civil servants advise ministers.

  1. To what extent does the prime minister dominate the UK political system?

    Brown, Prescott and Cook had to be in Blair's cabinet because of their popularity. The PM is not the only important figure! These political heavyweights may be favoured by backbenchers, the public, the media or their colleagues. They are perceived as being highly competent and the PM cannot afford to cross these ministers, especially in their area of policy.

  2. Government & Politics Revision Notes

    The UK is divided into 12 larger multi-member constituencies, which return more than one representative to the Parliament. There are 78 MEPs altogether. Effects The List System has made some big differences to party representation in the UK. The Simple Plurality (FPTP)

  1. To what extent has the post of Prime minister become more presidential?

    In contrast to these arguments is the difference between being head of state and head of government. It is also acknowledged that the British Prime Minister, despite having a more flexible role within the constitution, still has several constraints which the president doesn't have to work within.

  2. Where does the decision making power lie in the British executive: with the Prime ...

    The Financial Management Initiative was indicative of the new ethos, which aimed to drive efficiency through goal setting and quantifiable accountability. The culmination of Civil Service reform was the Next Steps report of 1987. The review called for a dismantling of the unitary civil service into a ' loose federation of many smaller agencies.'

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work