I do think that parliamentary governments tend to be more responsible. Because of the way they combine what would be seperate branchs in the American government, there is less opportunity to “grandstand”.
There are numerous examples where a President might call for some program or law but lament the fact that Congress wouldn’t enact it. Or Congress might enact a law, knowing that it will be vetoed by the President. But the opportunities for this kind of symbolism are more limited in a parliamentary government. Let’s say for example that the “Nationalist” party presents its ideas and wins a majority of seats in an election. With its majority it selects a Prime Minister and forms an administration. At this point, it is expected to carry out the platform it ran on and take the credit or blame for the results.
It’s worth pointing out that while Canada’s GG does appear to be something of a figurehead (which of course merely points out that there’s nothing newsworthy about a system operating smoothly according to design), the idea that the GG has no power would be mordantly ironic to former Australian PM Gough Whitlam, perhaps the only PM anywhere to be ousted by the prerogative power of dismissal.
Whilst it’s quite true that Whitlam was dismissed by the GG (Sir John Kerr), it’s not as if this was some whimsical decision on Kerr’s part. Whitlam was unable to secure sufficient votes in parliament to pass his budget, and without the passage of the budget, things get would’ve ground to a complete halt very quickly. The failure to pass the budget was equivalent to a vote of “no confidence” in the Prime Minister and the government. Kerr dismissed the government. Elections were called and the electorate endorsed Kerr’s actions in a landslide loss for Whitlam’s party.
Sie John Kerr used his powers to dismiss Whitlam as he feared that, if Whitlam got wind of what was in his mind, he (Whitlam) would “advise” (read ‘instruct’) the Queen to recall Kerr forthwith and replace him with a more pliant figure. In doing so he did solve, after a fashion, the crisis which was deadlocking the Senate and and forcing Whitlam to attempt to govern without supply.
Aside from that, the British system now works extremely poorly. Never has the power of Parliament to hold the administration to account been so weak. Blair treats it with total contempt and doesn’t even bother to inform it of his legislative plans, announcing them to the media first. Time was when a Minister who leaked proposals to the Press first would have had to resign. He is refashioning the Upper House as a creature of the Prime Minister’s patronage solely on the basis of a temporary and transient majority in the Commons
This is rather stupid and circular reasoning, isn’t it? Maybe you actually mean something else, but what you’ve said is that Kerr sacked Whitlam because he was worried that Whitlam would find out that he (Kerr) was in fact going to sack Whitlam.
I guess my thought didn’t come out as well as it might have done. His intention was to break the logjam. Arguably he should have let Whitlam know what was in his mind and thereby challenge Whitlam to request his recall if he dared.
I read you, and still you go on talking about Britain. The British system is not typical for democracies of the world. On the contrary, Britain, alongside USA, New Zealand and a couple of others, chooses their representatives in a winner-takes-it-all system. My point is that in a debate we need to focus on a typical system, a system widely represented throughout the world. However, we’re not discussing core parliamentarism anymore, but systems.
Again (if this is true, I don’t know), didn’t you read what I said that this kind of majority rule is not common for parliamentary democracies, on the contrary, it is very rare? You will find that almost every country has a Constitution which protects the minority against widespread changes by an “abuse” 51% majority faction.
This is the heart of the debate. You made a point in your previous post that in the US the executive branch and the legislative branch exist independent from each other, and that one branch cannot declare the other one nonexistent. According to you argument, in a worst case scenario, one branch can continue even if the other one, for some reason, ceases to exist. In a parliamentary system these two branches are interdependent, the two branches are accountable to each other.
You are correct in that Constitutionally the legislative and executive body are more closely aligned in a parliamentary system. I don’t have a problem with that, because the legislative body is elected by the people. As I demonstrated in my previous post, in both systems both of the branches depend on each other because of the checks and balances in the Constitution. I don’t see much of a difference in the US, GOP Bush and GOP Representatives still depend of each other to get their agenda through.
This is where you jump of the cliff. Didn’t you read the previous replies in this thread? Let me recap: In your average parliamentary system you will find that a majority, or minority, administration is center-left or center-right. Not extreme left or right, but moderate. A little googling would have told you that.
Finally, you hinted twice at Hitler and NSDAP as an example of the possible failiure of a parliamentary system where the legislative body “has all the power”. Well, in those days (they still do AFAIK) Germany had a president (just as in the US) with wide powers, who was elected in a separate election by popular vote (just as in the US). But that’s a different debate.
I still maintain that with an individual election of a president it’s more likely that this person can change his mind when he’s elected and “untouchable”, as opposed to a person who has to be accountable to both the legislative branch and his own party members.
Btw, In your first post you mentioned the EU. You are correct in that the EU isn’t very “citizen-friendly”, but you forget that the EU is still first and foremost a trade agreement, not a union. EU does not have a Constitution yet, that’s being discussed. It’s only lately that they have been moving into the “federal direction”
Completely true, and an illustration that the GG is not purely a figurehead. Because in “normal” times the Government (meaning PM and Cabinet) governs with a Parliamentary majority means that it exercises the normal functions of governing, in accord with democratic practice. But a head of state is empowered to act in extraordinary ways in extraordinary circumstances for just such a reason as Kerr did. It’s much like the impeachment process in the U.S. – rarely resorted to, but available to resolve a constitutional crisis.
I’m sorry for any implication of whim on Kerr’s part. IMO he acted forthrightly, using a rarely-tapped and extraordinary power to resolve a unique crisis, in accord with Parliamentary constitutional practice.
Germany has a president, but he isn’t anymore elected by the people, but by the parliament. And he has barely more power than the queen of England. Though I could name many chancellors, I would be hard pressed to remember the name of even one german president after Hindenbourg in 1934, including the current one. There isn’t even a coronation or a presidential son marriage ceremony :wally
Absolutely right. Yes, Weimar Germany had a strong President who was elected separately. I agree that the details are a debate of its own, but the way Hitler did rise to power (of course he might have done so in a different way) depended directly on support via Hindenburg’s emergency decrees. It was the President who appointed Hitler and until he died in 1934 Hindenburg could have removed Hitler from office at his own discretion (officially - we’ll never know what would have happened had the senile Hindenburg tried that)
Of course the Weimar system was vastly different from the US one, but the lesson Germany learned from that is that we don’t want a President who has much power beyond awarding medals. The head of Government, the Chancellor, is appointed by the parliament and the routine for his removal from office is that the parliament elects a new one with a simple majority - at any time, for any reason.
You’re actually incorrect there Kellner. Hitler gained power through the parliamentary process. The NSDAP at the time of Hitler’s appointment controlled 48% of the seats in the Reichstag, and they controlled government via a coalition with a smaller party I cannot remember.
The NSDAP threatened to walk out of the Reichstag and basically “freeze” government when Hindenburg repeatedly refused to appoint Hitler chancellor and continued to appoint other individuals who were quickly driven out of office by the Nazis.
Hindenburg had the power to dissolve the Reichstag and hold new elections, but he did not dare. Every single time the reichstag had been dissolved because of a Nazi walkout, the Nazi party gained strength.
Hitler bullied his way into the Chancellorship because of his vast parliamentary support (48% in the Reichstag was just as out of character then as a 48% would be now… Schroeder’s party for example controls about 40% IIRC and that’s one of the highest ever.)
The only lesson that really taught is that a President cannot let himself be bullied into appointing Nazis to the Chancellorship, the office of the President had nothing to do with Hitler gaining power. If the President had no power whatsoever then Hitler would have become Chancellor under the current system in Germany a full year before he did, it was only because Hindenburg held him back that it took him as long as it did to seize power.
As far as the “moderate” nature of coalition governments in Parliamentary democracy I never said that Parliamentary democracy resulted in nut jobs. I said it happened once, and when we are talking about any form of government in one of the major Western nations we are basically comparing different types of extreme success. If you had bothered to read that part before you got short with me.
I also pointed out that a very similar situation occurs in the United States. In the United States party discipline is not near as strong as in Europe. Candidates are held very accountable in their home districts, candidates gain “secure” seats in the legislature by shovelling pork back to their home districts. There are seats that appear to be “untouchable” but that is only because their holders consistently send pork back home. If they ever directly voted against the constituents and stopped the flow of pork they’d be thrown out of office summarily.
Due to this accountability to the constituents every congressman (I’m using this term to denote both Senators and Representatives) in the United States is a different advocate for something back home, something in Washington et cetra. A congressman has many favors he owes to become a congressman and many groups he must pander to if he wishes to keep his office.
Due to this, despite there only being one party, there are a myriad different lobbying group interests and regional interests confliting with one another in each party, which forces tons of internal debate and moderation which in net means the two parties in the United States are really not two parties. No party in Europe would be so heterogenous as the Republican or Democratic party. They are honestly much more like coalitions than true parties because there are so many differing interests inside each one.
When a big issue comes up in a parliamentary democracy you see a new party spring up. In the United States, the people behind the issue just decide which existing party they are going to swear allegiance to, and that’s how the two parties collide, they fight for the allegiance of every new special interest group that pops up.
Not Martin, here Kellner is pretty much right. Hitler did not come to power through the parliamentary process alone. It’s correct that NSDAP became a large party through elections:
18% in September 1930
37% in July 1932
33% in November 1932
But not at any time did NSDAP gain a majority (the 51% majority you have talked so much about) in the Reichstag in free and fair eletions, not even together with their ally.
What happened was that the German President, weak as he was, appointed Hitler as Chancellor in January 1933. Then, in February, the Reichstag was set on fire; Hitler blamed the Communists and persuaded the President to issue the Reichstag Fire Decree, which opened up for limiting civil rights such as freedom of speech and freedom to organize. This decree allowed NSDAP to have political opponents on the left arrested before the upcoming election. NSDAP, via SA, also intimidated the election campaigns of oppposistion parties, and as a result NSDAP got 44% of the vote in the election in March, 1933. By using this tactic NSDAP now had a simple majority together with their ally, but they did not yet have the necessary votes to change the German Constitution.
To gain dictatorial power Hitler needed a 2/3 majority to change the Constitution. He managed that by throwing the Representatives of the Communist Party in jail, making them unavailable to come to the vote on the Enabling Act. The Enabling Act was passed in late March 1933 at the Kroll opera house. With the powers granted to him with the Enabling Act, political parties were outlawed in July, 1933.
On a sidenote, Hitler also ran for President, getting 30% of the vote in the first round, and 37% of the vote in the run-off.
However, the rise of Hitler has to be seen in context with the near-total chaos Germany was in after WWI. There never was much support for the Republic to begin with. Later problems, such as hyperinflation (the value of 1 US dollar went from 4 marks to 4 trillion marks), the Great Depression and unemployment (went from 600.000 in 1928 to 6 million in 1933) created the enviroment which made it possible for NSDAP to thrive in the first place.
No, see above. Even though NSDAP was the biggest party (but they never had 48% as you claim), the remaining 60% was vehemently opposed to Hitler. If the President had appointed Hitler to Chancellor earlier, these 60% would have voted “no confidence” and trown him out of. You said that “Every single time the reichstag had been dissolved because of a Nazi walkout, the Nazi party gained strength”, but this is not true, NSDAP had already peaked during 1932 and was losing support (again, see above).
I agree. I’m not trying to get short with you. I’m simply pointing out that your claim that: a) in parliamentary democracy one branch has all the power, and b) that a 51% can do whatever they want, even change the Constitution, is flat out wrong.
What “set me off” was your claim that the danger of a parliamentary process is that you can get a 51% majority that can do anything, yet you failed to respond to questions about the current state in the US where the GOP now are in charge of all three branches of government, where the only thing that currently restrains the GOP is the filibuster. Parliamentary democracies have constitutions too you know.
But as I said before, we are not longer discussing parliamentarism anymore, which this thread originally was about, but political systems. My original point was that one could have parliamentarism in a political system such as the american, without switching systems.
Yeah, it’s the same thing everywhere. Even though Representatives in a parliamentary system are party members, they are also Representatives for their home districts and could be thrown out.
No. The only real “change” (except Italy I suppose) on the party scene in Europe has been the rise of far-right parties. Parties don’t “pop up” or “go off the radar and die” when issues change. Their support changes, but parties don’t disappear all together, usually.
our 3 arms of government system has borrowed from both the English and the American models. So we have a bicaremal form of government, where members of the legistlature make up the executive and the GG proclaims the laws as the Queens Representative. (NB: The republican movement here wants a President to attend to that role whilst retaining the other parts of Gov.t as is.) The Judiciary interpret and refine law and on occasion interpret law in light of our constitution.
The seperation of powers doctrine, incorporated from the US, is applied softly between the Exec. and the Parl., after all in a sense their one and the same, but strictly between them and the Judiciary, a great safeguard against authoritarian rule.
The role of the Senate here is important as the failure of the Senate to pass a money Bill, after passing through the lower house, on 2 occasions will force a ‘Double Dissolution’ and full House of Rep’s and 1/2 Senate elections ensue. As occurred for Whitlam, who on being sacked, and having a majority in the Lower House, tabled a No Confidence Motion re the appointed Fraser only to have it disallowed by the GG because he had already, at Fraser’s request, sealed the Dissolution of Parliament doc.s. Something that some Constitutional Legal Scholars here believe may have been un-constitutional. (Note too, that when Whitlam talked to Kerr re dismissal, Fraser allegedly hiding in the other room.)
The two Party Preffered and Compulsory Voting systems. No first past the post here, but the top two after the first count get the losers votes as directed by the loser. Everyone over 18 must vote, or get fined. So vote the way Mum and Dad did, (I don’t think it helps make the people more informed generally.)
Our Constitution of 1901 is most difficult to change due to its being enacted by 6 States all trying to get their own share and maintain their power bases. This has led to over government by having State Givernments as well with a small population and an inability to change the Federal Constitution without both a majority of people and a majority of states. (A safeguard put in by the less popular states back in 1901.)
No Bill of Rights. Still a contentious issue.
The difficulty arises I think when both preferred Parties start to take on the same right of centre approach. This seems to have happened here in the last 20 years with the fact the supposedly Pluralist Labor Party moving to the right and leaving the conservative Liberal Party no where to go but hard right. Of course this leaves the workers behind too. (little or no socialist left activity.)
Anyway I hope this is seen as contributing to the discussion and I think it is of interest that our constitution is one of a few not born out of conflict, but many years of Constitutional Conventions and re-drafting and discussion. I look forward to your feedback and constructive criticism.
I always imagined the governor general of a Commonwealth country would be a senior career bureaucrat, either in the British government or in the government of the dominion, or whatever they call them these days. Or else a close relative of the queen. But according to this site, the current Governor General of Canada is the Rt. Hon. Adrienne Clarkson, who has impressive credentials in Canadian television and publishing, and no prior experience in government or politics. (She’s also of Chinese birth, from Hong Kong, which she left as a refugee in 1942 at the age of three.)
How did they choose governors general in the days of the Empire?
they would usually be prominent British diplomats or military men or sometimes just the Great and the Good (the novelist John Buchan was Governor-General of Canada, Brigadier Bernard Fergusson was Governor-General of New Zealand.)When communication was slow they necessarily had a good deal of discretion to deal with local problems. In more recent decades they are entirely chosen by the Dominion itself, which ‘advises’ the Queen who to appoint.