[OT] Prime Minister/ Parliament vs. President/Congress?

[Heretic Apostate]

[size=+1]This is a completely, absolutely non-political thread.[/size]

Can someone give me a comparison/contrast of these two political systems, assuming everything worked exactly as intended? I'm just a 'murkin, and I want to know what the difference is.... (I'm reading a book that has some weird mesh of the two, so I am curious.)

 

[Memory]

The big difference is that the prime minister is a member of parliament, whereas the US constitution maintains a strict separation between the presidency and congress.

In a parliamentary system the executive and legislative branches are fused together. The prime minister is the head of the party that wins the most seats in parliament. The prime minister and his/her cabinet are all sitting members of the lower house of parliament. A prime minister with a majority government--as is usually the case in Canada and the UK-- tends to be much more powerful than the US president in domestic affairs, because it's much easier to force through a legislative agenda. Minority government, on the other hand, common in other parliamentary systems, tend to be very weak, unstable governments.

The US constitution, which I imagine you're more familiar with, separates the executive and legislative branches of government. The office of the presidency and congress are separate institutions that are meant to act as a check on each other.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

A PM can fall from power from a single vote of no confidence a President as you know requires a very elaborate impeachment trial.

This can make for a world of a difference if you look at say Italy and the number of governments they have gone through since WW2.

 

[hong]

Adkison

 

[Storm Raven]

In a parliamentary system the executive and legislative branches are fused together.

You pretty much got everything in your analysis correct, but I wanted to add that in most parlimentary systems, the judicial branch is also fused into the single governmental body with the executive and the legislature. If I remember correctly, the judges on England's highest court are all members of parliament as well.

In the US system, the Federal judiciary is strictly separated from the executive and legislative branches.

 

[Carnifex]

You pretty much got everything in your analysis correct, but I wanted to add that in most parlimentary systems, the judicial branch is also fused into the single governmental body with the executive and the legislature. If I remember correctly, the judges on England's highest court are all members of parliament as well.

Nearly there - the Law Lords here in Britain are not Members of Parliament, but members of the House of Lords.

 

[hong]

You pretty much got everything in your analysis correct, but I wanted to add that in most parlimentary systems, the judicial branch is also fused into the single governmental body with the executive and the legislature.

Not in Australia it's not, and I believe that's also the case in Canada.

 

[Memory]

Hong is correct--in Canada the judiciary is seperate from the legislative branch. Since the constitution of 1982, the Supreme Court of Canada has a role very similar to that of the United States. I'm not sure if judges sit in parliament in any system but Britain's.

 

[gustavef]

One aspect of Parliments is that many of the countries that have paralements came from (or still have) some form of Monarchy. The Queen of England even could shut down paralment not only in England, but Austrailia and Canada up until about 10 to 15 years ago. (I don't think that is the case today).

The Paralment was created to limit the abuse of Kings.

The Congress was created to goveren without Kings. It was also found on the "Seperation of Powers." Not just making sure one person could not do anything, but you had to different groups to agree.

-gustavef

 

[hong]

One aspect of Parliments is that many of the countries that have paralements came from (or still have) some form of Monarchy. The Queen of England even could shut down paralment not only in England, but Austrailia and Canada up until about 10 to 15 years ago. (I don't think that is the case today).

This is rot. The parliamentary systems in place in many modern democracies may have their faults, but the possibility of direct intervention by the monarch is not one of them.