There’s also the examples of countries that were parliamentary, like Turkey and some African Commonwealth countries in the decolonialisation process. They went from parliamentary to presidential, which made it easier for the president to assume dictatorial or authoritarian powers, like Erdogan. Concentrating executive powers in one person brings the country closer to a dictator.
For instance, ever heard of a dictator called the Prime-Minister-for-Life?
And that’s another example of our non-partisan system. Elections Canada determines our ridings, without input from the political class. We have rules, and they have a strong institutional culture of following those rules. Anyone suggesting a gerrymander like you have would be out of a job.
I would say the parliamentary system. It ultimately just depends on people voting.
I think you missed on the main way executive power gets transferred under the Constitution (it’s not impeachment).
In theory, the PM can hold power indefinitely.
Under the constitution, Presidents must get re-elected every 4 years, and have a max of 8 years in power no matter what.
I’d guess the average tenure of Presidents and PMs is roughly the same.
With the above said, I would like to chat about this more, and would prefer it to be good faith stress tests on each system. You’ve made good points.
I’m of the mind, that at the end of the day it just ultimately relies on good people doing good things to keep it going/not devolving into tryanny. But that’s really just a hunch. With that said, I bet one system, or some system, could really slow that or make it harder to get there. And you’re making a great argument for the parliamentary system. I’ll have more free time tomorrow though.
Now the Australian High Court is not “as clean as Rinso” as our Canadian colleagues are. Of the 57 justices appointed since Federation, 13 have been former politicians and 9 being Federal pollies starting with Australia’s first PM Edmund Barton then Richard O’Connor, Isaac Isaacs, H. B. Higgins, Edward McTiernan, H.V. Evatt, John Latham, Garfield Barwick and Lionel Murphy.
Yet, as assessed by their peers, their careers as jurists were not marked by partisan judgements or activism from the bench.
But some did dabble on the dark side. Barwick’s involvement in the 1975 dismissal of the Whitlam government was rank partisan, clandestine and duplicitous while Lionel Murphy finished his career with some ominous clouds over him having attempted to pervert the course of justice in a criminal matter on behalf of “my little mate” Sydney lawyer Morgan Ryan.
A really big contributor to the non-partisan nature is that the Australian High Court considers matters relating to the Australian Constriction, which does not have the equivalent of the US’s Bill of Rights. Hence High Court deliberations and decisions do not feature in the daily ingress and egress of Australians to anywhere near the degree seen stateside.
When a vacancy appears, the Federal AG will consult with attorneys-general of the states. Nominations from the various state benches are based on the merit of their personal and professional qualities. As a historical curiosity, the bulk of the Federal High Court Justices attended either Sydney or Melbourne University. The selection of candidates has been of the highest order of merit and largely uncontroversial. An indication was in 2015 Justice Kenneth Hayne on his retirement on reaching 70yo was replaced by Justice Michelle Gordon who was, and still is, his wife. Doubt you’d see that in the US.
Not in the Australian context:
31 PMs since Federation in 1901. Some having multiple and non-continuous terms in office.
Average total period as PM is 3.95 years
Only 11 have served more than 4 years.
Only 3 (Menzies, Howard & Hawke) have served more than 8 years.
This is a bit of a hijack from the topic of politicisation of the DoJ. But as far greater sages have wandered off this path I am encouraged to follow. Apologies.
Australian politics is generally played more of a blood sport than for our polite Canadian friends. Exhibit 1: Australia has had about 30% more Prime Ministers in a period of roughly 30% less sovereignty. Hence the description by the BBC as the coup capital of the democratic world. Though the same basic constitutional monarchy principles hold and are treasured.
But while a neat parliamentary vote of no-confidence being carried is the headline leading way to depose a Prime Minister mid-term you don’t need acts of gross moral turpitude towards the Constitution as means for the ends to be invoked. Way more often the “something hinky” is actually the Realpolitik of “they are going to lose the next election”. Which acts to focus the political mind nicely. Don’t plan for a career saving showing in the mid-terms, you could be out on your ear by Friday.
So mostly the way to actively change a PM is to call a leadership spill of the party in government and based on the party’s standing rules aggregate sufficient votes to install a new broom. Could be done in a couple of hours when parliament is sitting (though likely preceded by some period of intrigue).
Longer term watchers of the USA/Australian alliance might remember a presidential visit to these shores by George Bush in 1992. The invitation was issued by Bob Hawke who was PM when GWB boarded Air Force One but it was Paul Keating who greeted him at Canberra Airport. Nowt a shot was fired, even as celebration.
Australians are typically quite sanguine about a political party changing it’s leader and consequently the Prime Minister. Few tears spilt, even of the crocodile type.
Prime Ministerial shenanigan’s which trigger early elections are less appreciated. “We elected you bastards two years ago for a four year term. Figure it out and bloody well get on with it”.
The wall-to-wall election night coverages rate their psephological socks off but the election campaigns annoy the shit out of us. Most Australians now vote pre-poll by various means so they can shut off the cacophony. Elections are expensive, inconvenient and six or more weeks of political ads and grandstanding breaking up our sport coverage and soap operas is frankly unAustralian.
No shit.
I’m retired from County GIS. We make maps and do spatial analysis. So very much like surveyors. And many times people would ask us if we can recomend a surveyor. Nope, no can do. It’s against the rules. It’s called ethics.
Our small county govenment 4 person department could not support any private business by rercomending them.
Thomas has been bribed again and again. It’s rediculous.
I know exactly what you mean because I work in state government, have ethics training constantly, and abide by very strict guidelines. And all I do is fix computers and networks.