Which Nations Follow the Laws of US Constitution / BOR Most Closely (on or off paper)

[Acsenray]

Well if the OP would come back to explain his question maybe we could find out whether he is more interested in the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights so we could ignore the issue of structural differences with parliamentary systems.

[ctnguy]

@Northern_Piper

The difficulty with that list is that the great majority of the countries on it do not operate on one of the bedrock principles of the US Constitution: the strict separation of powers.

Scratch all the parliamentary democracies off the list of countries operating like the US.

[snip]

That leaves as possibles: Switzerland, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, South Korea, Mexico, and South Africa.

You can strike South Africa off the list on the same basis. The SA President is essentially a PM, in that he is elected by Parliament from amongst its members, depends on the continuing confidence of Parliament, and is removable by a motion of no confidence. And although the President stops being an MP when he is elected, the rest of the cabinet ministers are MPs.

[John_Mace]

@Northern_Piper

Is there any point in keeping this thread open? It’s got an unfathomable premise and the OP has not come back to clarify it, so I wonder what there is to debate?

@Northern_Piper

Yes, there are separate institutions, but the key difference is in the US system there cannot be overlap in the membership: a Cabinet secretary in the US system cannot sit in the Congress. In the parliamentary system, that type of overlap in membership is required. That’s a fundamental difference between the two systems.

I agree, but that’s not the question asked by the OP. He’s not asked what are the criteria for a liberal democracy. He’s asked what other countries follow the US constitutional model.

Parliamentary democracies with their overlap between the legislative and executive branches do not follow the US strict separation of powers, and thus appear to me to be outside the OP’s criteria.

What’s the expression? Life finds a way.

Actually, half the OP is easily debatable (or at least answerable) since he asks “on paper” as well. Someone upthread mentioned Liberia, which is probably the answer.

[Bookkeeper]

@Northern_Piper

Yes, there are separate institutions, but the key difference is in the US system there cannot be overlap in the membership: a Cabinet secretary in the US system cannot sit in the Congress. In the parliamentary system, that type of overlap in membership is required. That’s a fundamental difference between the two systems.

This overlap in parliamentary systems makes the members of the executive directly accountable to Parliament on a daily basis, as they are sitting in the chamber where they can be (and frequently are) questioned on the operations of their departments, unlike the US system where they are *directly *accountable only to the President.

[Siam_Sam]

@Bryan_Ekers

If you want an example of a country that was a democracy once but has slid dramatically into authoritarianism and/or chaos… Thailand, maybe? We need some parameters.

Thailand has never really been a democracy. The military has been in complete control ever since the 1932 Revolution overthrowing the absolute monarchy. It’s just that usually they keep a low profile and allow just enough democracy to satisfy the international arena. But if anyone starts getting too big for their britches a la Thaksin Shinawatra, they’re not shy about stepping in and coming to the forefront. Democracy in Thailand is a complete myth.

[Nava]

@Northern_Piper

Yes, there are separate institutions, but the key difference is in the US system there cannot be overlap in the membership: a Cabinet secretary in the US system cannot sit in the Congress. In the parliamentary system, that type of overlap in membership is required. That’s a fundamental difference between the two systems.

Underline mine: not necessarily; Spain’s system sees most ministers (national) and councilors (regional) come from the respective parliaments, but it’s not a requirement.

[up_the_junction]

@Martini_Enfield

One thing that’s quite interesting is that, as a general rule, most other western countries don’t (at least as far as I’m aware) bang on at length about their constitutions or what a bunch of people 250 years ago meant when they wrote them.

Australia has a constitutionand it’s really really boring. Important, but boring.

Interestingly, neither the United Kingdom nor New Zealand have anything which someone in the US would recognise as a constitution. They’re managing pretty well for themselves (no Brexit jokes, please - you know the point I’m trying to make.)

As far as I’m aware no new nation has followed the USA model of gov, just about all countries take an off-the-shelf parliamentary democracy and maybe add a twist - why buy buy a rust bucket, faulty Ford when there’s a perfectly excellent Mercedes for the same price.

Just look at what you’ve got right now; who the fuck would want that.

[Melbourne]

@Nava

Canada, New Zealand and Australia are in the list so it’s not all Republics, but France and Portugal are missing (or are they counted as part of “the European Union”? The political organization of the EU and of its constituent members are related but not the same, nor is it the same for each member) but…

I don’t know what does that article mean by “liberal democracies” and suspect there won’t be much of a clear definition in it, but the criteria doesn’t seem particularly evident.

Technically, Australia is a republic. It’s not “a republic with the same constitution as Ireland”, but the form of government is a republic.

Seperate from the whole “republican” furphy, the constituion of Australia was developed after the American constitution, and was deliberatly less democratic. The USA was taken as the example of what the Australian political class did not want to happen in Australia.

As in the USA, there was debate between people who wanted Democratic forms of government, and Republican forms of government, and the result is a compromise between those impulses. But the democrats had less influence in the outcome in Aus. than they did in the USA.