Component 3, Part 1 - Comparative Approaches Flashcards
Describe what the Rational approach is.
1) This approach focuses on individuals.
2) Suggests that individuals’ actions are guided more by consideration of their own interests than influence from groups or structures
When could you use the rational approach to compare certain parts of the UK and US system? Give 2 examples.
1) Comparing the power of the president and the prime minister, it could be noted that both act in a rational manner, using their own agendas to achieve their policy goals. They both have considerable authority as leaders of the government to set political agendas for their nation, based on their personal views.
2) Focusing on the power of a Congressperson and an MP, both my vote acting rationally to maintain their own position of power. They might resist structural and cultural factors.
Explain what the cultural approach is.
1) A cultural approach highlights the influence of groups, such as political parties, pressure groups, factions or groups of voters.
2) Suggest that people operate as they do because of the group they are in.
3) The group has a culture - shared ideas, beliefs and values - to which members conform, and which influences individual members actions.
4) Culture is habitual and perceived as natural, giving it power over individuals that they may not be aware of.
When could you use the cultural approach to compare certain parts of the UK and US system? Give 2 examples.
1) Comparing the PM and the President using a cultural approach, both may alter their policy goals because of the culture of their party. This can happen when their own views are out step with the views of their party and the prime minister or president feels the need to adjust their aims.
2) Looking at parties, with the high levels of partisanship in the UK and US, there may be a dominant value system that leads to tribal politics, influencing the behaviour of politicians. Politicians are acting on the basis of party culture, without considering their own rational self interest or structural influences.
Explain what the structural approach is.
1) Comparing the main political institutions or processes of the UK and US political system involves a structural approach.
2) Often involves understanding the main constitutional roles, powers and limits of a political process or institution.
3) The structural approach suggests that political actions are determined by these wider structures, and that the people who operate within politics are strongly influenced by them. The actions of individuals and groups are limited and largely determined by structures.
4) The structural approach can be applied readily to all topics because major political structures, such as constitutions, influence or determine political processes in every area.
When could you use the structural approach to compare certain parts of the UK and US system? Give 2 examples.
1) Comparing the PM and the President using the structural approach, the constitution provides a structure that restricts the office holder’s political actions. Both are subjects to constitutional rules and may find that their powers or policy goals are restricted. Both presidents and prime ministers have seen some of their key policy goals restricted by court decisions.
2) Looking at politicians in Congress and parliament, they have different levels of power from eachother. Arguably, UK MPs are more limited because of the power of the execute (prime minister and government), whereas US members of Congress have a greater ability to act as they wish because there is less pressure from the executive (president) due to the separation of powers and checks and balances system.
What are the provisions of the US and UK Constitutions? (Separation of powers, checks and balances, regional power, location of sovereignty, rights protection, amendment process
1) Separation of powers:
-UK: Parliamentary system. 3 separate branches (executive, legislature and judiciary).
- US: Presidential system. Separation of powers between executive, legislature and judiciary. Separate elections for the Congress and the President.
2) Checks and balances:
- UK: Parliament can check government by voting on government proposals and using a vote of no confidence. House of Lords is unelected and cannot reject decisions made by the Commons. PM, as head of government, commands a majority in the House of Commons.
- US: High premium placed on effective checks and balances. President can propose legislation, veto legislation, nominate to the executive and judiciary, and is commander in chief. Congress can propose, amend and pass legislation, ratify treaties and appointments and declare war. Both House and Senate provide powerful checks on the executive and eachother.
3) Regional power:
- UK: Regional power given in the form of devolution. Parliament can give power to regions, but this is not constitutionally guaranteed.
- US: Regional power created through provision of federalism. Power of states cannot be reduced without their consent through a 75% vote to amend the Constitution. Each state has the same power. Regional power of states is more extensive than in the UK.
4) Location of sovereignty:
- UK: Parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has absolute power. Parliament can amend the constitution with a 50%+ vote in the Commons.
- US: Constitutional sovereignty, its sovereignty is upheld by the Supreme Court. The constitution is entrenched, so is protected from change. Amendments requires supermajorities in House, Senate and states.
5) Rights protection:
- UK: Main protection through the Human Rights Act 1998, and membership of the European Convention on Human Rights, which the UK in 1951.
- US: Main protection through constitutionally entrenched rights, particularly in the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment.
6) Amendment process:
- UK: Constitution is easy to change with a 50% vote in the Commons.
- US: The entrenched constitution makes it difficult to amend =.
What are the significances of the differences between the provisions of the US and UK constitutions?
1) Separations of powers:
- Fusion of powers in the UK allows for greater executive domination.
- The UK system means that that the PM must command a majority in the Commons so that they can achieve political aims.
- However, US presidents are often in a position where they lack a congressional majority, so are more subject to legislative opposition than a PM. Also, Congress and the president can claim an equal mandate and right to govern.
2) Checks and balances:
- Both systems provide checks and balances, with legislatures able to provide checks on the executive branch.
- The UK’s fusion of power limits the effectiveness of checks and balances due to executive domination of the legislature. By contrast, the US president and Congress are interdependent; each finds it difficult to act without agreement from the other.
- In the UK, checks and balances are not particularly powerful. Power tends to be concentrated in the hands of the government or prime minister, and the powerful whip system and patronage ensure a loyal majority in the Commons.
- The US Constitution provides checks and balances, which prevent such executive domination.
3) Location of sovereignty:
- The UK Supreme Court is significantly weaker than its US counterpart, because UK justices have no codified constitution to uphold and cannot declare acts of parliament to be unconstitutional. However, in the US the Supreme Court can overturn acts of Congress.
4) Rights protection:
- It could be argued that the US constitution provides much stronger protection than the UK constitution. The sovereign entrenched Constitution means that individuals and groups protecting their rights in the US.
- In the UK, those rights are more vulnerable to executive and parliamentary attack, partly because they can be amended or overturned with a new act of parliament.
- Despite the lower level of structural protections, the UK has shown a relatively high level of rights protection.
- In the US there have been a number of rights concerns, including concerns about the power of the US security state after 9/11.
5) The amendment process:
- Provides a much stronger structure in the US than in the UK, restricting politicians more because they find it harder to change the rules of the political game.
- In the UK, any judicial interpretation can be overturned by a new act of parliament.
- In the US, the courts have the power of judicial review, through which they can overturn through the actions of any institution, including congress. The entrenched constitution means that their decisions are unlikely to ever be overturned by politicians
