# Checks and balances in democracies other than the United States **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 14, 2017, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/checks-and-balances-in-democracies-other-than-the-united-states/784441 "2017-04-14T12:57:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2017, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/checks-and-balances-in-democracies-other-than-the-united-states/784441/41 "2017-04-18T15:21:59Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > I’m not even sure when the last time the reigning Monarch effectively said “Lol no” to an Act of Parliament in the UK (or anywhere else in the Commonwealth where they’re still head of state, for that matter). The last time Royal Assent was refused in Canada was in the province of PEI in the 1940s. The Government passed a bill repealing prohibition. The Lieutenant Governor personally favoured prohibition and he refused Royal Assent. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2017, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/checks-and-balances-in-democracies-other-than-the-united-states/784441/42 "2017-04-18T22:24:05Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > The last time Royal Assent was refused in Canada was in the province of PEI in the 1940s. The Government passed a bill repealing prohibition. The Lieutenant Governor personally favoured prohibition and he refused Royal Assent. Fascinating! Thank you (and **Malden** ) for that. I had no idea Canada even _had_ prohibition, much less that it was a thing in places until the 1940s. This place definitely is educational. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/checks-and-balances-in-democracies-other-than-the-united-states/784441/43 "2017-04-19T01:46:31Z")
> [@PatrickLondon](#): > > In the sense of a constitutionally prescribed law, yes: but it is a check and balance within its system, in that it constitutes a limit to the whims of any one actor in the system. The US version favours the potential for gridlock, the Westminster version favours letting a government getting its programme through. > [@Malden\_Capell](#): > > More broadly, while the US Constitution favours gridlock, parliamentary systems like the UK work to avoid it, either by making the ground under the feet of the Executive and Legislature ever-shifting sands, but by also having an ultimate arbiter when a breakdown occurs - snap elections or a new government. And in the end, the test of checks and balances is whether they \*work \*to prevent thigs going off the rails, and it all depends on the players continuing to agree on the legitimacy of the social-political contract, that playing by its rules is beneficial while overthrowing it would be deleterious. Lose \*that \*and it matters not if the branches are seen as mutually adversarial walled gardens, there’s a history of three-separate-branch presidential republics right in my back yard becoming the fief of one ruling faction, when people stop feeling those in power need to beseech support and start feeling they’re owed obedience. Same as with there being a written vs. unwritten constitution – the world is littered with hundreds of expertly well-drafted, referenced, annotated constitutions and charters that became (or were from the start) not worth the paper they were printed on. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/checks-and-balances-in-democracies-other-than-the-united-states/784441/44 "2017-04-19T03:06:12Z")
You Burkeian! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/checks-and-balances-in-democracies-other-than-the-united-states/784441/45 "2017-04-19T04:01:24Z")
As seen recently with South Korea, the president can be impeached by the unicameral parliament; however, that alone does not eject him or her from office. The [Constitutional Court of Korea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Court_of_Korea) has to approve the removal from office. The [South Korean president](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_South_Korea) has a few interesting constitutional powers, one of which is “suspending all laws or enacting a state of martial law”. The parliament can overturn the president’s decisions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/checks-and-balances-in-democracies-other-than-the-united-states/784441.md?page=2)