Comparative Politics - The Executives

Question 1

Comparing the powers - ‘The President is more powerful’

Answer 1

1) Head of state and head of government - Sole head of the executive
2) Directly elected and has personal mandate
3) Much larger bureaucracy to support them (EXOP) - cabinet does not need to be ideologically balanced
4) Commander-in-chief, and the US’s position as the world’s largest military and economic power gives them a huge influence
5) President’s cannot be removed unless through impeachment, whereas the House of Commons can remove any Prime Minister with a vote of no confidence

Question 2

Comparison of the powers - ‘The Prime Minister is more powerful’

Answer 2

1) The PM can use the whip system and powers of patronage to dominate MPs from their own party and do not require approval for their cabinet appointments
2) The PM is less restricted by checks and balances than the President
3) Prime Ministers with a large majority and good party loyalty will have an elective dictatorship and great power
4) There is no legal requirement for the PM to obtain parliamentary approval for military action
5) Prime Minister’s have no term limits so can continue for longer in office

Question 3

The powers of the President and the PM - Chief Executive and Head of State

Answer 3

Chief executive -
- Both are chief executives, but the US President is a singular executive, holding sole executive authority, whereas the UK is a collective executive due to the cabinet government and primus inter pares and shares power through collective responsibility
- President has more executive power, being able to make executive agreements and order

Head of state -
- Performed by monarch in UK, President in US

Question 4

The powers of the President and the PM - Legislation

Answer 4

• Both initiate legislation, but separation of powers restricts US President more and so the legislative agenda is Congress’ only, which can also lead to rejection of any legislation suggested by the President
• Fusion of powers in the UK means that the government’s legislation programme is given more time in parliament and the PM can also influence voting more as they command a Commons majority and so can whip their MPs into voting for manifesto policy and can use patronage powers to gain support
• A PM with a large majority and strong support has an ‘elective dictatorship’ and this is because there will be few checks and balances on legislation and the sovereignty of parliament means legislation cannot be struck down by the SC like it can in the US and there is also no filibustering in the UK - the Lords can only delay a bill for up to one year
• Separation of powers limits the president’s control of party discipline - House and Senate whips work for the party leadership of those chambers rather than the president, and patronage powers are also limited as they cannot offer government jobs to the legislature - PM can much easily deliver legislative agendas
• The president can veto legislation, which the PM cannot - 2019 European Withdrawal Act forced Johnson to seek an extension to the withdrawal from the EU

Question 5

The powers of the President and the PM - Financial powers

Answer 5

• Congress has to approve the president’s budget each year, agreement is often hard and requires significant compromises, and the occasional government shutdown shows the limits to presidential power
• In the UK, this does not happen, as the budget is usually passed if the government has a Commons majority, and minority governments are rare but generally receive enough votes through budget changes to avoid rejection and no confidence votes

Question 6

The powers of the President and the PM - Military powers

Answer 6

• The president is commander in chief of the armed forces, whereas the UK has the monarch formally perform this role, but the PM acts as the overall military decision maker just as the President does; PM can declare war using the royal prerogative power
• The President in contrast cannot declare war, as this is done in Congress, but neither country has formally declared war since the Second World War, so their use of military action is more significant - the War Powers Act 1973 places a legal requirement on the president to have Congressional approval to military action but it is not always adhered to
• In contrast, the PM has no legal obligation to consult parliament before committing troops, with some arguing a constitutional convention of doing so arose during the 2003 Iraq War with parliamentary approval of the act, and then parliament voting against military action in Syria in 2013 - military action in Libya and Mali was undertaken however in 2011 and 2013 with no parliamentary consultation

Question 7

The powers of the President and the PM - Appointments

Answer 7

• The President’s appointments to the executive branch require Senate confirmation, whereas the UK Prime Minister can appoint with no scrutiny
• The President can nominate SC judges, which the Senate has to approve but gives the executive a judicial influence the UK executive does not have

Question 8

The powers of the President and the PM - Elections

Answer 8

• US President is directly elected and so has an electoral mandate
• UK Prime Minister is the leader of the largest political party and asks to form a government, and their authority comes from the mandate of the electorate choosing the party they want
• A PM that takes over between general elections has not faced the electorate, and so this commonly leads to general elections to guarantee a mandate, such as Johnson in 2019

Question 9

The powers of the President and the PM - Term Limits

Answer 9

• The PM has no term limits, whereas the US Constitution prevents the president being elected for more than two terms, weakening the President’s power in the final years of their second term, potentially making them a lame duck president
• The longest serving British PM was Thatcher (11 years) and Blair (10 years) a close second, and although PM’s power tend to decrease near the end of their time in office, particularly if public support wanes, but PMs do not see the same impact on their effectiveness as Presidents do

Question 10

The powers of the President and the PM - Succession

Answer 10

• US Constitution states a line of succession, with the VP following the President if the latter dies or is removed - Presidential candidates choose a running mate for the presidential election and the successful pair are elected together, and if the VP dies then a candidate is chosen by the president and confirmed by Congress
• In the UK, the PM can choose to appoint a deputy but it isn’t a constitutional requirement - Johnson did not have a deputy, and so the first secretary of state Dominic Raab deputised for him, standing in at occasions such as PMQs but they will not usually succeed them as leader
• The PM is usually succeeded by whoever has the most support in the House of Commons, either through an internal leadership election or a general election - no clear line of succession like the US

Question 11

The powers of the President and the PM - Patronage

Answer 11

• The PM and President can both reward supporters with cabinet or government positions, but it is more useful to the PM as it increases parliamentary influence and they can use a payroll vote to their advantage - separation of powers prevents the US President from having the same influence
• The PM can also recommend supporters for life peerages or honours and this allows composition of the House of Lords but appointees can still act independently, and the PM can also give Honours

Question 12

The powers of the President and the PM - pardons

Answer 12

The power of pardon is held by the President and used widely, and in the UK the monarch can issue a royal pardon on the advice of the justice secret, but this is rare - the most recent significant example was the pardon of Alan Turing in 2013 for homosexual ‘indecency’ in 1952 posthumously

Question 13

Accountability to the legislature - Passing legislation

Answer 13

• Both introduce an annual legislative agenda (President - State of the Union Address, monarch delivers King’s Speech on behalf of the government at the state opening of government)
• President’s find it harder to pass legislation through Congress, especially during divided government periods - Congress members are less subservient to their party leadership than MPs and are more critical of legislation, which often causes gridlock
• It is even hard in times of a united government e.g. Trump failed to repeal Obamacare in 2017, facing defeat by 4 Republican Senators
  President can veto legislation and it is hard for Congress to get the supermajority needed to veto this, and President’s can use the veto as a threat to get modifications to legislation they want
• The PM does not have a veto power, but is less likely to be faced with legislation they do not support as most of the legislation is on the government agenda, and the PM only needs the support for Commons in which they generally have a majority and so they do not face the same issue of divided government
  PM’s can also use the whip system to ensure party discipline whereas President’s have to make more deals and use powers of persuasion to get Congressional support
• The only time PMs struggle to pass legislation is really in times of minority government, such as May failing to pass her EU withdrawal bill, and a lack of party discipline can also get in the way, such as with Major’s rebellions and divisions in his own party - these situations occur more in US politics however

Question 14

Accountability to the legislature - scrutiny of the executive

Answer 14

• Both legislatures use a committee system to scrutinise government, but with the Prime Minister being held to account weekly by PMQs and also speaks at key debates in the Commons
• The separation of powers in the US means that the President does not address Congress apart from at the State of Union Address and on joint Congress sessions relating to issues of national importance

Question 15

Accountability to the legislature - removal from office

Answer 15

• Commons can call a vote of no confidence in the government at any time, and this can be for any reason, with a simple majority vote being enough to remove the PM from office and the government, and the PM can also be forced to resign by their party if it becomes clear they do not command enough support in Commons to govern efficiently
• It is much more difficult for Congress to remove the president from office as it has to use impeachment processes - no President has ever been found guilty by the Senate and removed office, but 3 have been impeached by the house (Trump twice)

Question 16

Relationship to other government institutions - Cabinet

Answer 16

• The PM and President both select their cabinet members but there are a number of key differences in their relationships with their cabinets
  US cabinet - nominees need Senate nomination, President has sole executive authority, no officer is a rival of the President, run their own department, officers tend to be policy specialists, cabinet reshuffles do nothing to increase power over the party, cannot threaten the President’s position with resignation other than the 25th amendment and presidency only calls a handful of meetings a year
• UK cabinet - PMs appoint who they want, collective cabinet government, cabinet is the ultimate decision making body, cabinet ministers normally rival the PM, generally not policy specialists, cabinet ministers are moved between departments, reshuffles are used as a form of control, losing cabinet’s support harms the PM and meetings are held weekly

Question 17

Relationships to other government institutions - Executive administrations and Wider Bureaucracy

Answer 17

Executive administration -
- Both leaders receive considerable support to help them run their governments - the EXOP is considerably larger than the PMO ad the Cabinet Office

Wider bureaucracy -
- Both leaders are the chief executive for the whole government bureaucracy, with the President heading the federal government and federal agencies, and the PM controlling the civil service and government agencies
- The majority of top officials in the UK civil service to not change from one government to the next, although a number of special advisers who are political appointees do - in contrast, a new US government has to fill around 4,000 positions in its administration, meaning the character of the federal government is fundamentally changed from one administration to the next, with a steep learning curve for many staff appointed at the start of a President’s first term

Question 18

The structural approach to comparing the executives - role of political institutions

Answer 18

• Fusion of powers means the UK PM and government are part of parliament, giving the PM greater influence on the legislature than the President, as the separation of powers limits the President’s control of Congress
• UK PM has a payroll vote, membership of UK cabinet means parliamentarians have to take collective responsibility for government decisions increasing the influence of the PM on individuals in parliament - US President is in contrast separated from the legislature and a head of state, giving them a greater constitutional role
• US has a sole executive rather than a collective system of cabinet government, giving the US President more administrative support and they also have greater job security, with their only threat an impeachment, whereas a vote of no confidence can remove the PM with a simple majority vote, making it essential for the PM to retain Commons support, whereas a President does not need to have Congressional support

Question 19

Rational approach to comparing the executives - role of individuals acting in self-interest, example 1

Answer 19

Responding to a weak legislative position - Obama v Cameron
- Cameron - creation of a LibDem-Conservative coalition in 2010-2015 meant a high cabinet focus in Cameron’s first term, particularly on the Quad committee (Osborne, Cameron, Clegg and Alexander) as without the agreement of both parties on Cameron’s policies, the coalition would end and a hung parliament would be created
- Obama lacked control of his legislature too for most of his presidency, losing the House in the 2010 midterms and the Senate in 2014, and unlike Cameron he could not meet with his cabinet and form a coalition, as his cabinet had no influence on Congress and so he had to use a different rationality - he used direct authority, using executive orders and agreements to avoid asking Congress to pass legislation and ratify treaties that would be rejected, whereas Cameron could focus his strategy on controlling parliament

Question 20

Rational approach to comparing the executives - role of individuals acting in self-interest, example 2

Answer 20

Responding to national emergency - Bush v Blair
- Both found their time in office affected by 9/11 attacks, the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003 respectively and the two became close allies
- Both leaders maximised control during wartime, with Bush using emergency powers to authorise the rendition of terrorist suspects
- Blair was accused of a presidential style of government in which he ignored his cabinet, with two ministers resigning in protest of the Iraq War and cabinet meetings were more likely briefings than discussions, which led to decisions being made in smaller meetings known as a ‘sofa government’ - Blair could dominate his cabinet this way because of his large majority and strong support in the Labour party
- Both leaders knew that the public and politicians tolerate more assertive government styles and foreign policy during a national crisis, and although it became clear several of their justifications were based on faulty intelligence, this investigation only occurred after both were out of office

Question 21

Rational approach to comparing the executives - role of individuals acting in self-interest, example 3

Answer 21

Responding to media criticism - Trump v Johnson
- Both PMs and Presidents try to have good relationships with the media, but in a modern social media age Trump and Johnson took different approaches
- Both leaders adopted populist policies to win elections and subsequently harnessed the informal powers of their offices to bypass the media - Trump used Twitter to commandeer the political agenda and Johnson answered ‘People’s PMQs’ sent in by Facebook users and gave statements directly to an in house camera team as opposed to the media
- Trump pushed back against criticism from traditional media, dismissing it as ‘fake news’ and he bolstered his supporters ito distrusting liberal news outlets and defend him from their attacks
- Johnson was also criticised for a confrontational relationship with the media, famously refusing to be interviewed by Andrew Neil during the 2019 election campaign, and after winning the election his government discussed the possibility of abolishing a BBC licence fee and the prevention of some news organisations attending a briefing in 2020

Question 22

Cultural approach to comparing the executives - respect and presidential status

Answer 22

• US political culture generally gives the President a greater degree of respect than the UK Prime Minister, and as head of state and commander in chief of the armed forces, the president has an important ceremonial role, reflected in the grandeur of the White House and Air Force One
• When a President’s term ends they retain the title of president and retire with a very high status; when a PM resigns, they continue to be a member of parliament, with May and Brown choosing to return to the backbenches
• Respect for the presidency as an institution in recent years has however been eroded by increasing division in US politics - there was evidence in the claims of the ‘birther movement’ that Obama had not been born in the states and Nancy Pelosi ripped up Trump’s State of Union speech as speaker of the House in 2020

Question 23

Cultural approach to comparing the executives - Limited government versus parliamentary government

Answer 23

• The US was created as an alternative to British rule, and so hostility to an overly powerful government is at the heart of its political culture whereas the PM office has evolved in the context of a parliamentary government, with parliamentary sovereignty being rooted in British culture since the English Civil War in 1642
• This allows the PM to exercise a great amount of power with little restraint, provided they maintain parliament’s support, and within parliament only the House of Commons can fundamentally block the PM’s plans, whereas in the US the President faces opposition in two independent chambers

Question 24

Cultural approach to comparing the executives - Imperial versus presidential criticism

Answer 24

• The US public expect their president to act independently of Congress and take executive action as required - the President is likely to only be criticised for acting in an imperial fashion if they exceed the normal parameters of presidential authority
• In the UK, public expectations of the PM are different - PMs who do not take a sufficiently collegiate approach with their cabinet are portrayed as presidential or domineering, as an important feature of collective executives is working collaboratively with cabinet ministers and their parliamentary party