[PAPER 3] Comparative Politics Flashcards
What are the comparative theories?
rational:
- focuses on individuals e.g President/PM, Lords, Senators, MPs, Congresspeople
structural:
- focuses on structures e.g legislative process, election process, constitution, sovereign bodies
cultural:
- focuses on groups in society e.g pressure groups, factions and political parties
What are similarities between UK and USA constitutions?
- both protect Human Rights- UK has 1998 Human Rights act, USA has the Bill of Rights and 14th amendment. Could argue US has stronger protection of human rights because constitution is entrenched but UK also shows commitment because they joined the European Convention on Human Rights in 1951
- both are vague- lack of clarity means they can be interpreted in different ways. For example in the USA there is debate over whether constitutional powers belong to federal government, the states or both. In UK there is debate over how much constitutional power devolved Parliaments should have e.g Scotland independence referendum
- both give separation of powers and 3 branches: executive, judiciary, legislative. Branches have their own checks and balances e.g USA- President can veto Congress, UK- Parliament can hold a vote of no confidence, Theresa May in 2018
- UK and US constitutions outline representative democracies where citizens vote for politicians to represent them
- constitutions state the need for bicameral legislature, UK has Commons and Lords, USA has House and Senate
- both have checks and balances, especially to limit power of executive e.g UK- MPs voted against a no deal Brexit, USA- Congress voted against the repeal of Obamacare
- both have devolved powers, USA has federalism and UK has devolved Parliaments in Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland, some devolved areas have tried to gain independence e.g Scottish referendum. US federalism has been eroded by federal intervention but UK
What are differences between UK and USA constitutions?
- UK constitution is unentrenched, USA is entrenched- UK constitution is very easy to change with a simple majority vote, USA has a long amendment process. e.g UK Human Rights act could be removed with a majority vote in Parliament, USA Bill of Rights would be very difficult to remove would need 2/3 of Congress support, UK also has parliamentary sovereignty meaning successive parliaments can change previous parliamentary laws
- USA constitution is codified- comes from one document written in 1787 and ratified in 1788, UK constitution is uncodified- comes from many different sources in different locations- statute law (passed by Parliament), common law ( made by judges) and conventions (customs that aren’t written down)
- UK has a Parliamentary system- 3 branches overlap/fuse power. There are only elections for legislature and government is drawn from Parliament. USA has a Presidential system with clear separations in power, no one can be part of two branches at the same time. There are separate elections for executive and legislative
- devolved powers work differently, UK devolved power gives different levels of power to different regions, in USA regional power is even and state power cannot be reduced without their consent- 75% of states have to agree for an amendment
- representative democracy seen in UK constitution: PM not directly elected but is leader of the winning party, House of Commons are elected while House of Lords aren’t, USA has more direct democracy: Senate and House are directly elected, President is directly elected to an extent BUT has to win electoral college which has a representative aspect
What are the comparative theories for similarities of constitution?
rational approach:
- constitution is limited in regulating individuals
cultural:
- in both USA and UK there are high levels of expectation of strong regional power, it is possible for UK to end devolution and reduce regional power but this is unlikely to happen due to cultural reasons, in USA the two parties have different ideas of regional power- there is stronger culture of state’s rights among Republicans however this culture is very strong in the USA so most politicians conform to this
- in both there are sometimes cultural expectations for politicians to respond to e.g when David Cameron passed the right to gay marriage, he was responding to the dominant cultural belief of equality
structural:
separation of powers/checks and balances-
- checks and balances mean both countries have structures that can restrict executive
sovereignty-
- both countries have a fairly independent judiciary which provides structural limits on other political institutions
regional power- devolution and federalism both provide structures that determine power is shared between central and regional govt
What are the comparative theories for differences of constitution?
rational:
- justices in US Supreme Court have strong ability to act according to their own ideology, vagueness of constitution allows self-interested judges to apply their own interpretations, in the UK judges apply parliamentary acts rather than interpreting a vague constitution so are less able to use their own views
- rational approach suggests US voters are more able to pursue their own rational self interest than UK voters because they have greater choice- separation of powers and short electoral terms means more voting and greater sensitivity to public opinion
cultural:
- politicians act differently due to the constitution- in UK constitution has less of an impact as there is no single document and less clear guidelines, so politicians are not as regulated, in USA constitution plays a much larger role in regulating activities of politicians
structural:
separation of powers and checks and balances- executive in the US is far more restricted than in the UK, there are structures limiting the president because he may lack congressional majority so Congress are more willing to restrict president’s policies, in UK the PM is restricted by structure of parliament but less so than in the US, PM has majority and strong patronage so parliament is less likely to use checks available to them
- Congress is more powerful than parliament is limiting the executive
sovereignty- constitutional sovereignty in US has created structure that limits executive and legislature- courts have a high degree of power, can overturn president and congress, in UK parliament is not limited by this structure because parliament itself is sovereign
amendment process- UK constitution is more easily changed and has a weaker structure in restricting politicians than US constitution
regional power- structure of US constitution gives even more sharing of power between central and regional govt, while devolution provides a structure the power levels of the regions are much lower and can be reduced by parliament
What are similarities between Parliament and Congress?
legislation:
- both can initiate legislation- Parliament can pass bills with a 50% majority, Congress can pass legislation with a 2/3 majority in Congress
- control over constitutional change- Parliament can easily change constitution e.g Human Rights act was implemented into the constitution in 1998 with a simple majority
Legislation, Congress also has control- constitution is not as easily changed but Congress still has control over it e.g 2/3 of Congress have to agree in order to amend the constitution - both have power to block legislation- Parliament can ‘ping pong’ legislation between the Commons and Lords in order to delay voting on it, gridlock between House and Senate can lead to legislation being blocked or delayed e.g Trump’s border wall was blocked by Congress
checks:
- both have two chambers, House and Senate, Commons and Lords, both also have separation of powers between executive, legislative and supreme court which all check on eachother, PM is checked by Commons through PMQs, President and executive members are scrutinised on different topics by committees e.g Foreign Affairs Committee
- both have power to remove executive- Parliament can have a vote of no confidence to remove PM e.g Theresa May had one in 2018, Congress has power to impeach a President and remove them from office e.g Bill Clinton was impeached by House but acquitted by the Senate
- both can remove members of legislature- Recall of MPs act means MPs can be removed from their constituency if they break the law, frequent elections in Congress (every 2 years for all of House and 1/3 of Senate) means Congresspeople can be easily removed if people disapprove of them
representation:
- both use a winner takes all system, with FPTP and in the electoral college, 50% majority is needed to win in constituencies/districts, minority views are discarded and every vote not for the winner is wasted
- lack of representation- Lords aren’t elected so can’t be very representative of people’s views, incumbency in Congress means newer views are less likely to be represented, pressure groups influence Congresspeople to vote along with their views which can also mean they are less representative of their constituents’ views e.g NRA pays congresspeople to vote against gun control
foreign policy:
- control over military action- Parliament approval needed to pass foreign policy and military action, Congress has power to shape foreign policy and arguably declare war
What are differences between Parliament and Congress?
legislation:
- in Parliament most legislation is from govt’s legislative programme, in Congress there is no govt programme of legislation
- Parliament has small number of bills introduced in a session, in Congress thousands of bills can be introduced in a session- fewer bills entering Congress pass into law compared to Parliament
- Parliament has patronage- whips are used to tell MPs how to vote, 3 line whip means they have to vote according to their party, Congress has a lack of discipline with voting, Congresspeople often vote according to their constituents rather than their party, no patronage so they don’t get penalised for not voting with the party
- UK has Parliamentary sovereignty- legislation made by Parliament cannot be overturned by a higher body e.g Supreme Court can’t change Parliamentary acts, Parliament can make a law on any subject, USA has constitutional sovereignty which limits power of Congress- Supreme Court can overrule legislation by deeming it unconstitutional, President is also arguably
more powerful with use of executive orders and veto - Lords are limited- can’t block or remove legislation, only delay it up to 2 years, can’t delay money bills, Salisbury Convention means they can’t go against legislation in govt’s manifesto, Senate has strong powers- power to confirm appointments to executive and judiciary, power to impeach members of the executive, power to ratify treaties so can defeat legislation
- in UK, PM sits in Parliament so can persuade MPs to vote with them, needs a simple majority of 50+% to pass legislation so it is passed quickly, in the US there is no executive control, when House and Senate are controlled by different parties gridlock is likely, long legislative process means legislation is likely to be defeated
checks:
- scrutiny is different- separation of powers in Congress means no executive members are in Congress and there is no oversight on the floor of either chamber, unlike in UK with PMQs, can only scrutinise executive via standing committees or by not passing Presidential legislation/ratifying treaties, can remove executive via impeachment, in UK the executive sits in Parliament and there are many opportunities to scrutinise e.g select committees, PMQs and removing a PM via a vote of no confidence
- in the UK, Commons are stronger than the Lords- Commons can remove a PM via vote of no confidence, they have final approval on passage/amendment of bills and can reject govt’s budget, House of Representatives has equal lawmaking powers as the Senate, this can cause gridlock when the two sides disagree
- Parliamentary sovereignty and nature of UK constitution means there are no constitutional checks on Parliament, this means they are able to pass laws on any subject e.g legalisation of abortion and gay marriage, Congress has constitutional checks which limits legislation- there may be gridlock due to parts of Congress arguing a bill is against the constitution, Supreme Court can overturn laws and rule them as unconstitutional in court cases, limiting power of Congress
representation:
- representation of constituents is highly important in Congress because constituents choose each party’s candidates, whilst it is still important in Parliament, the party has more of an influence over Parliament members than in Congress- the party has influence over MPs as they select the candidate
- in USA there are more frequent elections- seats in the House of Representatives are elected every 2 years and every 6 years in the Senate, in UK members of House of Commons are elected every 5 years while Lords are unelected
- all of Congress is elected- all of House every 2 years and 1/3 of Senate which is very representative, Lords are not elected- mainly over 50, white and male which is not very representative and arguably undemocratic
What are the comparative theories for similarities of legislature?
cultural:
- there are high levels in party unity in both Parliament and Congress, partisanship has recently risen in the US-suggests a desire to work with common values influences their political behaviour
- there are cultural expectations in both UK and USA- the Lords are governed by cultural expectations of roles- because they are unelected they are restrained in opposing govt policy, especially when policy carries out wish of the people, Congress also has cultural expectations e.g there is arguably respect towards the President in foreign policy where Congress are less aggressive than in domestic policy
What are the comparative theories for differences of legislature?
rational:
- Lords are not elected and are barely subject to any patronage, party unity is low with high number of crossbenchers which allows them to be fairly free from structures or cultures- Lords are more able to use their judgement than Senators
structural:
- can be used to show how Congress is generally far more powerful than Parliament when checking the executive, US constitution giving a separation of powers and high levels of checks and balances means Congress cannot be dominated by the executive in a way that Parliament (fusion of powers and lower levels of checks and balances) can
- different constitutional rules on election show there are structural differences- constitutional requirement for elections in the Senate and life appointment in the Lords creates major differences, allows Senate to be more powerful than the Lords and means Senators are much more aggressive to check the executive than peers in the Lords are
What are similarities between PM and Prime Minister?
- both PM and President are chief executives and run the executive branch- PM chairs meetings of the cabinet, creates new govt departments and heads the Civil Service, President uses EXOP to help run the executive, PM and President both have role of submitting the budget
- President and PM both propose legislation to be passed through the legislature- PM’s proposals are in the Queen’s speech while the President’s are in the State of the Union Address
- both PM and President can appoint members to the executive- PM has patronage power to appoint politicians to the cabinet, President must have executive appointments confirmed by a Senate vote
- both PM and President have some power to order military action- PM uses royal prerogative (set of powers belonging to monarch but exercised by PM), President can order military by using their role as commander in chief (has power over foreign policy and military)
- in UK, minority govt or a divided party means a PM does not have power over Parliament e.g divided party over Brexit and minority govt means Theresa May has had limited control over Parliament, her Brexit plan did not pass, in USA divided govt means President does not have control over Congress- when House and Senate are controlled by different parties it can lead to gridlock which stops Presidential legislation passes
- both executives are scrutinised by legislature- PM is scrutinised weekly in PMQs, which enables backbenchers to question the PM’s actions, govt legislation is scrutinised by debates and by select committees, President can be scrutinised by Congressional Oversight Committee
- both PM and President are accountable with elections, UK elections for PM are every 5 years and Presidential elections are every 4 years- means PM and President can be removed by the people if people don’t agree with their policies
What are differences between PM and Prime Minister?
- President has powers the PM does not have e.g signing and vetoing legislation, pardon powers and judicial appointments, PM has a more important role in the legislature unlike the President, and have patronage powers (use of whips)
- President signs legislation in the USA whereas the monarch does it in the UK, President is head of state in the USA, whereas in the UK it is the monarch
- PM is selected from Parliament and candidate for PM is not chosen by people but is chosen by their party, sometimes PM is unelected e.g Theresa May was appointed as PM after David Cameron resigned when the UK voted to leave the EU in 2016, President is directly elected by the people, people choose the candidate from each party and they vote for the candidate not the party
- PM needs Parliament/party support to keep position- there can be vote of no confidence to remove PM when Parliament does not support them, needs Cabinet support, easier for PM to pass legislation through Parliament whereas President has a fixed 4 year term regardless of whether Congresspeople support them, President is a sole member of executive while PM is backed up by cabinet, Congress has equal powers to President so neither has more power over legislation
- PM with a large majority is not held to account e.g Tony Blair had a large majority in Parliament so when MPs/ministers resigned, he still remained powerful and was not scrutinised, President will be held accountable by Congress regardless as the executive and legislative are separate branches and there is no Presidential control over Congress
- role of judiciary is limited in the UK- they cannot challenge PM’s legislation passed by Parliament, judiciary is effective in the USA, Supreme Court can stop any Presidential legislation passed by Congress
What are the comparative theories for similarities of executive?
rational:
- reveals how both President and PM are highly motivated to pursue their own self-interest by attempting to achieve their policy goals
What are the comparative theories for differences of executive?
rational:
- PM has greater patronage power and usually appoints/dismisses Cabinet members partly based on loyalty- here they are rationally trying to improve their own position, Presidents have less influence because they do not have the ongoing promise of promotion to all members of their own party in Congress e.g Donald Trump acted in his own rational self-interest by bringing like-minded people into his Cabinet
structural:
- constitutional structures strongly influence PM and President, PM has higher level of power than the President due to fusion of powers compared to separation of powers which the USA has, fusion of powers combined with FPTP makes PM so powerful over Parliament
What are similarities between UK and US Supreme Court and Civil Rights?
judiciary:
- both have the role to uphold the law and constitution through interpretation, both have power of judicial review- US court uses it to declare acts by executive or legislative unconstitutional, UK also uses it to make rulings e.g Gina Miller, Parliament would have to decide on Brexit not govt
- both have high levels of independence with security of tenure- allows court to exercise power freely without fear of political repercussions, both can give rulings which undermine executive e.g US Supreme Court ruled against Trump’s plans to end DACA, Gina Miller case in UK meant Parliament had to decide on Brexit not govt, so undermined govt’s power, US Supreme Court can rule executive actions as unconstitutional, UK can rule minister’s actions as ultra vires (ministers acting beyond legal authority)
- in both countries, high-profile nature of some cases means there is external pressure on justices, US faces a lot of pressure due to rulings being on constitutional issues e.g 1972 Roe v Wade which legalised abortion and 2015 Obergefell v Hodges which legalised gay marriage, UK also faces pressure in high profile cases e.g 2005 Prevention of Terrorism act, Supreme Court said it was not compatible with Human Rights Act, also pressured to make rulings on Brexit
civil rights:
- both judiciaries have main role to protect civil rights and have extensive powers to do so- UK court uses 1998 Human Rights Act and European Convention on Human Rights to protect civil rights, US Court uses Bill of Rights in the Constitution to protect citizens
- USA Bill of Rights is entrenched and not easily removed- Supreme Court has rigid powers to upheld Human Rights, UK HRA is quasi-entrenched, it could effectively be removed by Parliament but it is seen as too important to be abolished, 2015 David Cameron proposed a UK Bill of Rights after leaving the EU but plans were scrapped
- there has been greater concern over civil rights being endangered in both countries due to anti-terror legislation since 9/11 e.g UK 2005 Prevention of Terrorism act gave right to detain individuals suspected of terrorist activity, arguably against HRA which gives right to a fair trial
What are differences between UK and US Supreme
Court and Civil Rights?
judiciary:
- US court has more scope to have influence than UK- codified constitution allows them to overturn even most powerful elected bodies e.g President, in UK Parliament is sovereign so court cannot overturn acts of Parliament, US Supreme Court upholds Constitutional law while UK court upholds Parliamentary law
- US appointments are chosen by President and are highly politicised- President nominates judges whose ideology is similar to theirs, Senate often confirms appointments on party lines rather than whether they are capable for the role e.g Brett Kavanaugh voted against by Democrats, justices can be impeached, in UK judicial neutrality means judges are not involved in party politics, appointments are done without political interference by the Judicial Appointments Commission, security of tenure means UK judges cannot be removed for their decisions and keep their positions until 70
- UK judicial decisions can be easily overturned by executive/legislative by creating a new act of Parliament- undermines civil rights protection by the Court, US judge decisions are very hard to overturn, need a supermajority- civil rights are strongly protected
civil rights:
- UK has Human Rights Act which is the basis for civil rights, USA has Bill of Rights, HRA is unentrenched and could be removed, Bill of Rights is entrenched
- UK civil rights pressure groups may have limited influence if the party in power is unsympathetic, USA civil rights pressure groups have more opportunity to influence, especially in divided govts they will find someone with sympathetic view
- UK Parliamentary acts are sovereign, even if they infringe human rights/are undemocractic e.g prisoners denied the vote, in USA judges can overturn constitutional law if it restricts civil liberties
- UK has longer tradition of human rights e.g 1215 Magna Carta meant everyone is subject to the law, even the King, USA has a poor tradition of human rights, some people not given civil rights e.g slavery and racial segregation under Jim Crow laws in the 1950s
