From my point of view, there’s three things that make for good governance.
Accountability to the people. Those in power need to have strong incentives to do what the people need. Governments need to lose power if they do not.
Checks and balances. Power needs to be divided among multiple groups. The more power is concentrated into a single branch of government, the more prone to autocracy it is.
Rule of law. Everyone needs to be treated equally under the law.
Presidential vs parliamentary doesn’t matter if those principles are met.
It matters to me, and I wouldn’t wan the US system under any circs- stumbles from crisis to crisis, most years it can’t even pass a budget, owned by corporations and lobbyists.
Some old, upper class white men, panicked at the changing world before them, might have thought so. Doesn’t mean it was true, Thatcher was a classic career Politician.
This is true. Many people vote with the party leader in mind, even if they are ‘actually’ voting for their local representative.
I do, however, like that no Prime Minister can stumble on without the support of his party, mumbling ‘but I have the public votes!’ as they stagger to a slow demise. Thatcher had started to assume the persona of a President and look where that got her.
Well, to state the strikingly obvious, we don’t elect a President. The Prime Minister does not represent us as Head of State, we have someone far more experienced and level headed for that.
On the other hand, had you been living under eleven years of Thatcher, you might have found yourself decrying the unitary nature of the British government and wishing for a separately constituted legislature and supreme judiciary to stymie her policy choices.
At Westminster, you don’t necessarily have to lose, either, just to have demonstrated a sufficient loss of support for you to become “damaged goods”, as in the case of Thatcher, and Chamberlain fifty years earlier, and for enough of the people who should be supporting you to start to worry about losing their seats (or a war).
In a parliamentary system, your leader would normally have worked their passage as a member of parliament and secured some measure of support (depending on the individual parties’ rules) from the other members in parliament. Or, to put it bluntly, you might not have been stuck with Trump in the first place, or if he turned out to be so much not up to the job as to jeopardise his colleagues’ seats in parliament, they could eject him.
But again, that is just an effect of the US political culture and ruling classes – Change the US government to a parliamentary system and you’d have changed nothing about that.
We probably wouldn’t have, but that doesn’t mean we might not have gotten a bad Prime Minister that could have been as bad or worse. If the Dems or Republicans were in charge, I’m not exactly sanguine that they would select great candidates…in fact, I shudder to think of who might have gotten the top spot in the past if we had this system. Maybe they wouldn’t have been as bad as the bad Presidents we’ve had (Carter, Nixon, Bush II, and of course Trump) but it’s hard to say if they would have necessarily been better, either.
The thing is, as with a lot of stuff, simply grafting on a parliamentary system onto the US is very unlikely to get the same results as the same system that evolved in the UK over time. Much as we are similar to the folks from the UK, and much as our system originally came as an extrapolation of what the FF though were improvements of the system they knew, we aren’t the same, or voters aren’t the same, and our political parties aren’t the same. Personally, the thought of either of the two major parties (or presumably the minor parties that would have shots at coalition governments) choosing the top executive is more frightening than the thought of what my fellow voters vote for. It’s not a LOT scarier, but it’s certainly a measurable difference.
She was in no way an outsider to the degree that makes it a worthwhile term. She became an MP, then a minister, then Leader of the Opposition, then Prime Minister, over many years - she did that through politicking as a Tory and courting the party.
Yes, she was a major break in many ways, but she would not have gotten to where she did without support of the Party.
Not at all. It’s not just remove, it’s remove & replace. How many members of the Republican caucus think they could do a better job as POTUS? How many think that a majority of the Republican caucus would agree with them?
Should there be a candidate who believes they have the requisite numbers they get Republican members of the House and Senate to call a party meeting. It is determined that the position as leader of the Republican party be declared vacant. Nominations to fill the position are called. A vote is taken. Whomever commands the majority walks out of the room as elected leader. Can be done in a couple of hours without need of resorting to firearms. It’s a wonderful mechanism to concentrate the mind of the leader.
There’s not much need to speculate on the kinds of leaders we’d have in a parliamentary system. The role of Prime Minister is directly analogous to that of Speaker of the House. Of course, with a more powerful lower house, you’d have people who in our world are senators running for House seats instead. But if you look at the list of current and past House Speakers and Senate Majority leaders, you’ll get a good idea of the kinds of leaders our legislators choose, even if the exact list of names might be slightly different under a different system.
I don’t think the PM is analogous to the Speaker. In a parliamentary system, the executive is the cabinet of the ruling party. They make the policies and the laws and I believe that makes the difference between the systems much more than you posit.
I don’t understand much about how the legislative and executive branches work in the US but do know about a parliamentary system. If the PM can command the backing of his or her party in Parliament, then they can do just about anything.
Parliament is described as the highest court in the land, meaning the judiciary can’t block or overturn legislation, as once it is passed, only Parliament can stop it being enforced.
The three-pronged checks and balances of the US constitution do not exist in NZ’s parliamentary system and that makes the working of government quite different than in the US.
The rise of prospective candidates for Speakership through the US committee system has more to do with seniority than is typically the case with parliamentary systems, not necessarily a bad thing.
Question Time: The real theatre of parliament where those who are not on top of their brief, who can’t think on their feet, who aren’t capable orators, simply flame out under the glare. Clinton, Obama and Reagan would have been superb from the dispatch box, neither GWB or Trump would have survived the scrutiny.
Absolutely. It takes a very complex mess of interactions between voters, opinionators, the elected, and the systems and institutional arrangements to make a political culture.
The fact that each new parliament is sovereign rather than, for example, have a bunch of presidential appointees interpret language from 240 years ago as if it’s Wayne’s World sacred text, is … not unhelpful.
