"The British Parliament is weak whereas the US Congress is powerful." Discuss.

Holding the Government responsible is done through questioning such as Question Hour of ministers, Prime Minister’s Questions, general, adjournment and emergency debates, early day motions, select committees, and correspondence with ministers.  These procedures force the government to publicly subject its activities to evaluation.  The British constitutional system is designed to ensure that the government and Parliament are working along the same lines, whereas in the United States, the constitution operates so that the President and Congress can coexist but without conformity.  In the UK ministers are accountable to Parliament and must maintain its confidence.  In the US the president does not need the confidence of Congress and the committees of both Houses of Congress constantly scrutinise the executive.   

One of the main functions of both Parliament and Congress is the legislative function.  However, the two legislatures differ in that parliament rarely initiates bills, the executive in the House of Commons does, and the executive proposes most amendments to bills.  In contrast, Congress as a whole initiates and amends legislation.  Ascension through Parliament is nearly always a formality due to strict party discipline in the UK.  The government, usually possessing a clear majority, can easily pass their bills since opposition MPs nearly always vote against each other.  Congressmen of the president’s own party would not have any qualms about opposing him if they feel his plans to not coincide with their interests or the interests of those they represent.  In addition, Congress, compared with Parliament, is far less likely to pass legislation requested by the head of government. Studies done over a twenty year period (from 1954 to 1974), Congress passed only 44% of legislation that the president requested.  From 1956 to 1969, Parliament approved 96% of all executive-sponsored legislation.  Moreover, legislation passed by Parliament was far more likely to be in its original form.

Today, several factors that reduce Parliament’s significance can be identified.  Britain has been described by Lord Hailsham as an “elective dictatorship” due to the increasing power of the executive and the majority the present Labour government enjoys.  Due to its large majority, the government can push virtually any measure it wants through.  Furthermore, the government can impose procedures and timetables, limit questioning of its activities, and if necessary, win votes of no confidence.  Related to the size of government majorities is the rise of the organised party system and the strict voting along party lines.  Due to the strict whip system, the opposing parties will almost always vote against each other.  This greatly increases the ease with which the government (usually possessing a clear majority) can pass their bills, and makes Parliament weaker in its ability to amend and reject bills.  The fact that there is effectively only one main opposition party in Britain reinforces the division of parliament along party lines, and therefore its weakness.

In addition, the British Parliament, particularly the House of Commons, has increased the use of special advisors.  This means that unelected, unaccountable people are deciding policy, not the people’s representatives in the House of Commons.  Furthermore, these special advisors are increasingly allied to the government of the day.  Therefore, Members of Parliament do not having a significant role in influencing bills, they vote on them according to their party line.  In addition, Quasi-non-governmental-organisations (quangos) and executive agencies, such as benefits and pensions agencies, are not accountable to Parliament, which means the people’s representatives cannot question their actions.  Moreover, the existence of insider pressure groups means that the pressure group can influence government policy, but elected Members of Parliament rarely influence policy, they vote on it along party lines.  There is however, the provision of Private Members’ Bills, although this too can be shown to have minimal impact on the overall policy process.  Of 584 Private Members Bills introduced in the 1987-1992 Parliament, most were never debated and only 65 (11%) were passed.  When compared to government legislation, which introduced 213 bills with 202 (95%) passed for the same period, it becomes apparent how insignificant Private Members Bills are.

Devolution in the UK undermines Parliament, as the more sovereignty given away to devolved assemblies, the more is taken away from Westminster.  Furthermore, membership of the European Union for UK is a big factor in reducing the role and status of national European parliaments.  EU law takes precedence over any domestic laws of the member states.  The UK constitution has always recognised Parliament as the sovereign, autonomous law-making body, although it could be said that Parliament’s sovereignty is being eroded and lost to the direction of the European Parliament at Brussels, as there is a growing inability to legislate without external regulation.  Furthermore, an issue at the Council of Ministers may now be subject to Qualified Majority Voting.  Many Trade and Industry issues, for example, are subject to QMV.  Because of QMV, Germany and the UK may be forced to adopt legislation that the minister voted against.  European laws are not debated in the House of Commons.  (They are, however, sometimes debated in the House of Lords).  Introducing laws that are not scrutinised or debated by the British Parliament is in breach of the convention that says that Parliament is the supreme law making body of the UK.  Furthermore, increasing globalisation means that there is a limit to what can be done, especially in the economic sphere.  Formal constraints in addition to the EU include the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

Parliament can be said to have a lot of power, however, due to the absence of codified, constitutional limitations on the legislature, especially in comparison to the US, where the constitution is strictly upheld.  For example, unlike Congress, Parliament cannot declare an Act of Parliament invalid once it has been passed.  One of the ways in which Congress can be shown to be powerful is in its relationship to the executive branch.  The US Constitution grants “all legislative powers” to Congress, and does not grant express powers to the president.  The Constitution instead enumerates seventeen separate powers to Congress, including what is known as the “elastic clause,” which says that Congress has the authority to make whatever laws are “necessary and proper” for carrying into effect its enumerated law.  Moreover, in contrast to the President of the US, the British Prime Minister has prerogative powers, which allow him to act without consulting Parliament.  The status of Parliament is in decline if the Prime Minister does not have to consult Parliament, especially as the Royal Prerogative provides the ability to declare wars without consulting Parliament first – in the US, the Senate must approve a president’s declaration of war.  Furthermore, the Constitution gives Congress exclusive control over matters in regard to its own composition, rules, agenda, internal structure and timetable.  The president has no control over these areas.  The Constitution lists a wide range of congressional powers, including coining money, maintaining a military, and declaring war.  Congress also controls federal taxing and spending policies, one of the most important sources of power in the government.  However, one of the most important powers is Congress’ authority to investigate and oversee the executive branch and its agencies, such as the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice.  Congress has at its disposal a number of methods for overseeing the operations of administrative agencies - as part of this responsibility, known as oversight, Congress summons senior officials to answer questions from members, orders audits of agencies, and holds  on matters of general public concern.  In addition to the power described above, Congress shares powers with the president, in matters such as framing US foreign policy and control over the military.  For example, while the president is the commander-in-chief of the military, it is Congress that declares war and approves funds for the military.  Moreover, while the president negotiates treaties, they are only put into effect once the Senate approves them.  Compared to the role of the executive, the powers allocated to Congress were substantial.  This is almost in direct contrast to the UK and prime ministers’ dominance in their relationship with the legislature.  Although it is possible for presidents to enact their own agendas, Congress often frustrates the will of the president, especially in times of divided government – when the president’s party is not in control of one or both houses of Congress.  The president can recommend measures to Congress but cannot force them to be made into law.  Woodrow Wilson said of presidency: “to succeed, he need only obey Congress and stay alive.” 

Although Congress is indeed powerful, the constitutional checks on Congress are quite effective.  The presidential veto of legislation allows the president to reject an Act of Congress, a decision that can only be overturned by the very high threshold of two thirds in both chambers of Congress.  It may be used as a useful bargaining tool, although if Congress was sufficiently united and determined to do so, it could still overturn a presidential veto.  Unlike the British Parliament, or more specifically the House of Lords (being the highest court in the UK), the Supreme Court of the US can declare legislation unconstitutional.  The Judicial Review of legislation by federal courts is therefore very effective in checking the power of Congress.  The coequal status of the House of Representatives and the Senate in the Constitution also checks the power of Congress, as the possible difference in opinion on legislation in both houses limit the legislature’s capacity to make decisions on policy.                                                     

Parliament holds several key roles, representation, legislation, scrutiny and influence of the executive, and debate on issues of national importance.  Although there is evidence to show that the influence of Parliament is in decline, particularly due to the growth in power of the executive, the doctrine of parliamentary government (where government is drawn from, located in and accountable to Parliament) remains fundamental, since it is the way in which the system is made democratic and legitimates the governments rule of the country by holding it accountable.  Although it is no longer influential in terms of legislating, and even in scrutinising the actions of the executive, Parliament is still an important body despite it weakness.  Parliament can therefore be defined primarily as the institution that remains to safeguard parliamentary democracy and hold the government accountable for its actions.  In relation to the UK Parliament, the US Congress is considerably more powerful.  Congress has specific, independent powers granted to it by the codified US constitution (as opposed to the UK’s uncodified constitution) that it can exercise independent of the executive’s preferences.  Also, due to the vagueness of the US Constitution, for example the granting of “all legislative powers” to Congress and the “elastic clause” which states that the Congress has the authority to make all laws that are “necessary and proper” to uphold the Constitution, gives Congress considerable power.  Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York once remarked that the US is the only country that has a legislative branch, meaning that only the US Congress has great powers that it ca exercise genuinely independently of the executive branch.

Bibliography:

Bradshaw, Kenneth and David Pring, Parliament and Congress, London: Quartet Books, 1982

Budge, Ian, and Kenneth Newton et al., The Politics of the New Europe Atlantic to Urals, London: Longman Limited, 1997

Coxall, Bill and Lynton Robins, Contemporary British Politics, (Basingstoke: MacMillan Press Ltd., 1994), 207

Fisher, Louis, President and Congress, New York: MacMillan Press Ltd., 1973

Hames, T. and N. Rae, Governing America, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996

Norton, Philip, Does Parliament Matter?, Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993

Peele, Gillian, (ed.), Developments in American Politics 4, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002

Skowronek, Stephen, The Politics Presidents Make: Leadership from John Adams to Bill Clinton, Cambridge, Mass.; London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1997

Wilson, James Q. and John D. DiIulio, American Government, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1998

WWW:

Janda, W., “British and American Politics,” ()

Norton, Philip, “Strengthening Parliament is Crucial,”

(www.trg.org.uk)

---