Comparing the executives Flashcards
chief executive
UK:
- chief executive of government
- heads a collective executive, shares powers with cabinet members who hold collective responsibilities
- PM is primus inter pares (first among equals)
US:
- chief executive of government
- singular executive, sole executive authority
- ability to use direct authority to issue executive orders, agreements and signing statements
head of state
UK:
- monarch is head of state
US:
- president is head of state
- president receives ceremony and pageantry
legislation: UK
- executive is part of the legislature so programme f legislation receives majority of parliamentary time
- democracy allows PM more opportunities to influence voting
- use of patronage powers to offer government jobs to induce votes
-whip system ensures party discipline - elective dictatorship as there is few checks and balances
- parliament is sovereign so SC cannot strike down laws
- House of Lords can only delay legislation
- PM cannot veto legislation
legislation: US
- congress is separate from the executive so it has its own programme of legislation, presidents suggestions can be rejected
- house and senate whips work for party leadership not the president
- patronage powers limited (cannot offer jobs)
- has ability to veto legislation
financial powers
UK:
- government shutdowns don’t exist so its easier for PM to pass a budget
- UK minority governments are rare and generally receive enough votes to pass their budget/make enough change to prevent vote of no confidence
US:
- congress must approve presidents budget every year
- agreement often difficult to achieve and requires significant compromise
- occasional shutdowns
military powers: UK
- PM acts as overall military decision maker
- can declare war using royal prerogative powers (formally done by the monarch)
- no legal need for PM to consult parliament to deplete troops (military action was taken in Libya in 2011 without preceding vote)
military powers: US
- president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces
- president cannot declare war (War Powers Act 1973), this is done by Congress (hasn’t been done since WW2 showing use of military action as more significant)
appointments
UK:
- PM can appoint whoever they choose
- no influence over judiciary
US:
- presidents appointments to executive positions require senate confirmation
- has right to nominate federal judges (needs senate approval but gives president power over judiciary)
election
UK:
- PM authority comes from leading the largest party in the house of commons which has mandate from last general election
US:
- directly elected so has personal mandate
term limits
UK:
- no term limits
(longest serving = Margret Thatcher 11 years 208 days, Tony Blair 10 years 56 days)
- power tends to decrease towards end of time in office but no clear end point
US:
- constitution prevents president from being elected for more than two terms
- weakens power of president (final years of final term = lame duck president)
succession
UK:
- pm may appoint deputy but its not a constitutional requirement
- Johnson had no deputy when he had COVID so his secretary of state deputised for him
- a deputy PM may stand in at PMQs but unlikely to succeed
- not been deputy PM since 1955
US:
- constitution states line of succession
- VP automatically succeeds if president dies, resigns or is removed
- presidential candidates choose running mate
- if VP dies, resigns, removed or becomes president, president chooses another that is confirmed by congress
patronage
UK:
- can reward supporters with government positions, increases support of parliament as PM can depend on payroll vote
- can recommend supporters for life peerage (allows PM to influence HOL) and honours
- can reward supporters with government positions
- separation of powers prevents presidents from influencing members of congress
- can give presidential awards such as the presidential medal of freedom
pardon
UK:
- monarch can issue royal pardon on the advice of the justice secretary (eg. Alan Turner homosexual indecency 1952)
US:
- power held by president
president has greater power
- head of state and government
- head of executive
- directly elected, personal mandate
- commander-in-chief of US military
- larger bureaucracy to support them (EXOP)
- USA position as worlds largest economic and military power
- presidents cannot be removed except by impeachment
PM has greater power
- great power when there is a large majority and good party discipline
- whip system used to dominate MPs
- less restricted by checks and balances
- no legal requirement for PM to to seek parliamentary approval for military action
- no term limits
Passing legislation: US
- legislative agenda the State of Union Address to congress
- difficult to pass legislation in divided government
- congressmen less subservient to their party leadership and more critical leading to gridlock
- presidents relationship with congress is difficult even in unified government (Trump and Obamacare)
- president has power to veto legislation and its hard for congress to obtain supermajority and overrule veto
- presidents have to work harder to convince
Passing legislation: UK
- introduce legislative agenda in Queens speech
- PM has to only convince one chamber and rarely face divided government
- whip system party discipline
- may struggle to get legislation through during minority government (Theresa May failed to get her withdraw through which led to her resignation)
scrutiny of the executive
UK:
- PM personally held to account by HoC at PMQs and key debates
US:
- separation of powers means president does not address congress outside outside of State of Union Address and occasional joint sessions
removal from office
UK:
- HOC can call vote of no confidence at any time for any reason
- simple majority vote
- PM may be forced to resign when it is clear they cannot command enough support in HOC
US:
- much more difficult
- must navigate process of impeachment
- no president has ever been found guilty by senate and removed from office
- three presidents have been impeached (Trump twice)
US v UK cabinet
- senate confirmation v no confirmation
- president does not share executive authority v ‘primus inter pares’
- officers only responsible for running their department v ultimate decision making body
- policy specialists v not policy specialists
- reshuffles not to control party v reshuffles as a form of patronage and control
executive administration
- both leaders receive considerable administrative support to help run their governments
-scale and scope of EXOP is much more extensive than PMO and the Cabinet Office
wider bureaucracy
UK:
- chief executive for whole bureaucracy
- PM controls civil service and government agencies
- majority of top officials do not change from one government to the next
US:
- chief executive of whole bureaucracy
- president heads the federal government and federal agencies
- new US government administration needs to fill 4,000 positions
- character of the federal government is fundamentally changed from one administration to the next
structural: role of political institutions
- government part of parliament gives PM with majority more ability to influence legislature compared to president
- PM can rely on payroll vote, president cannot
- key parliamentarians take collective responsibility, increasing influence but in US cabinet members not part of congress
- singular executive v system of cabinet government
- US president more administrative support
- due to process of removal, president has more job security
- president has greater ceremonial role to play
rational: Obama and Cameron
Cameron:
- cons lacked majority so coalition government formed
- focused on cabinet and Quad committee
- without agreement of both parties to Cameron’s policies, coalition would’ve ended
-his emphasis on collective decision making was a rational response to hung parliament
Obama:
- lacked control over legislature for most of presidency
- democrats lost senate and Obama rarely met with his cabinet
- his rational response was to use direct authority to govern
- used executive orders and agreements to avoid asking congress
rational: Bush and Blair
- time in office transformed by 9/11 terrorist attacks
- both maximised control during a time of war
- both knew the public and politicians tolerate a more assertive style of government during national emergency
Bush:
- declared ‘war on terror’
- used emergency powers to authorise extraordinary rendition of terrorist suspects and detention without trial
Blair:
- believed UK had a duty to support USA and became Bush’s closest ally
- accused of ‘presidential’ style of government as he ignored his cabinet (two resigned in protest of the Iraq War)
- cabinet meetings were more like briefings not discussions (decisions made in smaller meetings)
rational: Trump and Johnson
- both adopted populist (champion of ordinary people) policies to win elections and harnessed informal powers to bypass media
Trump:
- used Twitter to commandeer the political agenda
- dismissed the media as ‘fake news’
- claimed the New York Times was siding with China over the USA
- bolstered distrust between supporters and liberal news outlets
Johnson:
- famously refused to interview for 2019 election campaign
- his aides caused controversy when they prevented some news organisations from attending a briefing
cultural: respect and presidential status
- political culture grants more respect to president than PM (head of state and commander-in-chief)
- president has an important ceremonial reflected by the grandeur of the White House and Air Force One
- when a president’s term ends they still retain the title and retire with highest possible status
- when PM resigns they still remain MP (many choose to return to backbench)
- respect for presidency has eroded by division in politics (eg. ‘birther movement’ claims Obama was not born in the USA)
cultural: limited v parliamentary government
- USA created as alternative to british rule so hostility to overly powerful government is at heart of culture
- PM evolved in context of parliamentary government
- sovereignty rooted in culture since English Civil War (1642)
- PM exercises enormous power with little restraint
- PM plans only blocked by one chamber v president faced opposition by both chambers
cultural: imperial v presidential criticism
- US public expect president to act independently from congress and take executive action
- president only accused of being imperial if they exceed the parameters of presidential authority
- public expectations of PM to follow collegiate approach, if not they’re accused of being domineering and too presidential
