The position of the President of the United States of America is the most visible position of power in the world; he is seen as the controller of the most powerful nation. The US Constitution gives the President a number of formal roles; Chief Executive, Commander-in-Chief, foreign diplomat and informally Chief legislator and power of veto. The US Presidential powers are limited and controlled by Congress and the Supreme Court as they hold opposing powers and can limit the President’s ability to do the above-mentioned roles. The executive, legislature and judiciary are entirely separate in their authority, but rely on each other to get things done and possess a series of checks and balances over each other that can prevent actions from occurring. The limiting capacity of three groups sharing a powerhouse can mean little actually gets done. A recent example of these groups playing what is known as “chicken” was 1995 and the players were Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich. This example has been described as due to the political polarisation of US Congress and almost an example of premature lame duck presidency mentality held by the Republican Congress at the time. I believe that although this an example of what can go wrong in an actual democratic presidential system it is a risk worth taking rather than calling yourself a presidential democracy such as Brazil and having on some levels military dictatorships.
The American system of balanced power can often lead to political gridlock in a way that does not happen in other countries. No country that has sort to copy the US model has come anywhere close to replicating the checks and balances that the “Founding Fathers” wrote into the US Constitution. The reasons for this vary from country to country but include, the multiplicity of parties, the power of the military, the impotence of the judiciary and the lack of a democratic history. From seeing all these countries copying the US Presidential systems we can observe that all presidential democracies were inspired by the USA.
The president must increase his status and authority by increasing two other attributes, his professional reputation and public prestige, although these are subjective ideas it is essentially how capable he appears to the Washington community; of Congress, the Administration, State governors, military commanders, party leaders, representatives form private interest groups, newsmen and foreign diplomats. These have become more important in the media age that we live and the world has enhanced the status of the US presidency through giving him the media coverage, even terrorists increase the US presidential and national status by targeting them as their objectified enemy.
The United States is said to have a government of laws and institutions rather than individuals, but it clearly is important who is president and hold that key role in office and it can have profound repercussions. Look at Johnson’s reluctance to leave the Vietnam War, as he did not want to be seen as the first president to loose a war. Johnson admits “I never I never intended to be a war president”. The question can be put; did thousands die to save this man’s political face? If we look at Britain we can see that it is the strong leaders who have shaped our country and government; - “In Great Britain, with its tradition of collective leadership, for example, the rare Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher, or Tony Blair is far outnumbered by the many Stanley Baldwins, Harold Wilsons, and John Majors, whose personal impact on governmental actions is at best limited.” (The Presidential Difference by Greenstein). We can look at this quote and understand more why when countries such as Brazil have tried to emulate the US Presidency they have failed. They need a strong incorrupt leader but with a safe guard such as impeachment and a strong independent Congress to protect the theory of democracy at work. When we examine Neustadt thesis we can see that the US President has difficultly getting things done more so than in a parliamentary system. He also states that a president need to do a number of things to enhance their influence within their term of office, from introducing major policies at the beginning of a term to enable them to be passed and also to stop history tarring them with the brush of a lame duck presidency with little real achievement Neustadt states “No man can argue on his knees” and that is the case with any strong leader. They need to be seen on a global level as having authority that is respected and adhered to.
“All parliamentary and all Presidential systems have a common core that allows their differentiation and some systematic comparison”, this is an assertion made in Hague and Harrop for although the US is a unique system and country there are clearly similarities with Western Parliamentary democracies such as Britain, Germany and France (the last two are essentially mixed but with the German president having no direct power). Neustadt’s main analysis on being a President is the power to persuade. We can apply Neustadt’s thesis to all systems of democratic government. The key political figure, be that the Chancellor, President or Prime Minister needs to have the power to persuade others to enable policies to go through. One of the major failings of the Latin American ‘attempts’ at presidential democracy is that they fail to get rid of the old regimes and “you scratch my back” mentality. The bureaucracy and corruption that exists in both the role of the Brazilian Presidency and its Congress stops it successfully copying its model the USA.
“A British Prime Minister in command of a parliamentary majority is an elected dictator with vastly more domestic power than an American President” This statement made by Andrew Rawnsley is possibly true in reality if a bit ironic. For although British Prime Ministers may have more domestic control and power than a President of the US we can see that modern Prime Ministers are trying to achieve the personality politics on an international level first seen in the US. We could examine Blair and Bush’s international profile and attendance at global crisis’ to see Blair is playing a more visible international leader’s role although some critics call him and us merely a US satellite. The Prime Minister possesses enormous influence over ministers and cabinet, but ultimately it is their decision to act upon them. But
I believe that the main problem with using the US presidency as a model for executive authority is that countries are expecting the status of the US presidency from their democratic infancy. We can observe this if we look at Brazil or even the mixed system of Russia. They expected that by giving someone this superlative title they would be able to automatically gain domestic and international respect and authority on a par with the US. Reputations need to be built and an executive’s reputation only comes with time. The executive is at the political tier and the apex of government in charge directly with the nation’s affairs. For although the US is a system to admire no other country has had the time to establish its self as a presidential state. Latin American countries are improving but a lack of capital and leaders failing doing the initial major changes to their countries, from the need to get out of the pockets of military groups to the need for major economic over-hall to bring them out of the depths of debt. Only with major changes could they stand a chance at being a successful imitation of the US. No nation will ever succeed as a carbon copy of the US presidential system as it is steeped in history and constitutional amendments that have come together over 100’s of years of precedents. Roosevelt and Eisenhower helped to institutionalise and centralise the presidency- implement presidency as a “National Symbol”. With the Truman idea of “The Buck stops here!” the presidents of the 1940’s and 50’s gave the presidents a status that has never been matched in any other economy across the world. But again this is hugely due to the media, financial, economy status of the American nation.
Bibliography
Landman, T- Issues and methods in comparative politics (An Introduction). Routledge, 2000.
Linz & Valenzuela- The Failure of Presidential Democracy. Johns Hopkins Ltd, 1994.
Hague, R & Harrow, M- Comparative Government and Politics (An Introduction). 5th Edition, Palgrave, 2001.
McLean, I- Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics. Oxford, 1996.
Budge et al - The new British Politics. Addison Wesley Longman. 1998.
Internet links-
www.observer.co.uk
The Presidential Difference by Greenstein.
BusinessWeek- (European Edition)- 12th Nov 2001. 8th Oct 2001 (took recent statistics from this).
Political Science Quarterly. Volume 107 No. 4 1992-93. Brazilian Party underdevelopment in comparative perspective.
