Comparing constitutional arrangements Flashcards
Structural theory
Focuses on institutions and their formal, outward appearance (Eg. The way Constitutions can be amended)
Rational theory
Focus on the actions and behaviors of groups/individual. Emphasis is on what political tactics make logical sense
Cultural theory
Emphasis on history, shared values and cultural context
Similarities in structure and potential for change
- both lay out the framework of democratic politics and accountable institutions
- both seek to defend individual rights and deal with discrimination
- both adapted to mass democracy without major constitutional revolution unlike France
Differences in structure and potential for change
- B= uncodified constitution USA= codified constitution
- B= easy to amend
USA= hard to amend - B= parliament is sovereign
USA= constitution is sovereign - B= convention becomes important in the absence of clear entrenched procedures
USA= Articles of Constitution precise but terminology is vague
Power distribution
USA = deliberate separation of powers
UK = fusion of powers (few formal checks on PM)
Legislative power
Similarity:
- passes all national and federal laws (where pressure groups focus their lobbying)
Differences:
- UK= focus entirely on Commons
USA= Lobbyists target both Senate and House
Executive power
Similarity:
- draws up policies and set out political agenda (Eg. MAGA and Get Brexit Done)
Difference:
- UK= PM with healthy majority can easily get their agenda through
US= Presidents have to negotiate and bargain with congressional leaders (Trump struggle with border wall funding)
Limits on executive and legislative power
Similarity:
- neither can be imperial (PM checked in Commons, President checked by Congress
Differences:
- US= checks and balances earthed into political system with vetoes and supermajorities
UK = only formal veto point (denial of royal assent) hasn’t been used since 1707
Role and impact of the judiciary
Similarity:
- judiciary can rule against legislative and executive (Eg. UK ruling with ECHR and US ruled line item veto unconstitutional)
Differences:
- US= far more powerful in shaping state, landmark cases are major part of US constitutional and political history (constitutional sovereignty)
UK = judiciary cannot rule Acts of parliament unconstitutional just incompatible with EU law (parliamentary sovereignty)
Devolved and federal government
Similarity:
- decision making takes place in regional assemblies or in state capitols and campaigning goes on for elected offices
Differences:
- UK = devolution far less important
US= elections to state legislatures and governorships have long been heavily contested (major access points for pressure groups)
Context to principles
US = embraced key features such as republicanism and representative government, product of short lived failed revolution
UK= product of centuries of evolution and has been adapted over time to incorporate democratization etc, still monarchial
Context to heritage
US= took inspiration from ancient Rome and Greece
UK= legacy of hereditary practice and deference (Eg Lords and Commons)
Context to individual rights
US = more explicit about the protection of rights, greater attachment to liberty, didn’t intend to protect rights of every man and woman (Bill of rights and Magna Carta stressed need to limit ability of monarchs)
UK = historic attachment to civil liberties, didn’t start with intention to protect every man and woman
US federalism
- entrenched principle of the constitution
- greater law making powers than the UK (Eg. Death penalty)
- US states can decide the electoral system they use
- all 50 states enjoy legislative equality but state law must conform with both federal law and the constitution
UK devolution
- adopted as a parliamentary statute (can be reversed)
- growing legislative divergence (Eg. Higher uni fees in England than Scotland)
- devolved assemblies get to partially decide their own electoral system for assembly elections
- doesn’t apply to the whole nation (Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland)
Parliaments strengths
Can question executive directly
Range of parties represented
Government can implement policies
Parliament weaknesses
Doesn’t provide effective enough check on the executive
Second chamber is weak
Committees either dominated by parties or are relatively toothless
Congress strengths
Strong and established committee system
Powerful chambers reduce chance of one party dominance
Important checks on executive (Eg. Veto override, impeachment)
Congress weaknesses
Very effective at stopping things from happening
Overly partisan with less objectivity (republican controlled committees investigate democrat executives with partisan rigour)
Structural theory: comparing constitutions
- codified v uncodified
- fusion of powers v separation of powers
- federal v unitary
Cultural theory: comparing constitutions
- attachment to states rights v parliamentary dominance
- product of evolution v product of revolution
- aristocratic church power v classical republican world
Rational theory: comparing constitutions
- lobbying Supreme Court v lobbying parliament
- spend time persuading fellow party members
- lobbying state gov v lobbying devolved assemblies
Structural theory: comparing devolution and federalism
- every state retains law making powers by constitution v devolution not entrenched by constitution
- federalism uniform across all states v devolution only in some parts
Rational theory: comparing devolution and federalism
- in USA state elections are very significant
- US pressure groups focus activity on state legislatures v parliament focus of lobbying
Cultural theory: comparing federalism and devolution
- states rights deep rooted in US political history reflected in strong attachment to state based institutions, state governors enjoy higher approval ratings than presidents v UK regional assemblies more recent on arrival on the political stage
Structural theory: comparing legislatures
- Congress enjoys concurrent powers (both chambers) and have powerful committees v UK Commons the dominant chamber in UK (Lords have very few real powers)
- executive found in legislative v entirely separate
-more power lies in states v Westminster dominating
Rational theory: comparing legislatures
- two political parties dominate but third parties more prominent in Westminster
-party discipline stronger in UK less need to persuade v US president still seek bipartisan support
Cultural theory: comparing legislatures
- anachronistic traditions (Eg. Queens speech) v Congress longstanding traditions (Eg. State of Union Address) but less dominated by ancient traditions (has developed new ones like filibustering)
- debating floor mainstay of political theatre v direct questioning of ministers or president impossible in Congress due to speration of personnel (lack drama)
