6. Comparative approaches Flashcards

Question

What are the arguments that support congress being more powerful than parliament from the view of ‘checks and balances'?

Answer 1

- The U.S. constitution gives Congress stronger checks than parliament has. The ratification of treaties and appointments and the ability to declare war with Congress, not the president - The royal prerogative, in theory, gives these powers to the prime minister. Executive appointments are not subject to parliamentary approval - However… It is unlikely that a prime minister would sign a treaty or declare war without a House of Commons vote. Again, much depends on party majorities

Answer 2

- Congress has a lot of power over the executive. It has two equally powerful chambers that can both provide significant checks on the president, making restrictions on the executive branch much more successful - The House of Lords is a relatively weak legislative body - However… Arguably there has been a resurgence in the House of Lords, with a more aggressive chamber based on greater legitimacy after the removal of hereditary peers. There was a short-term increase in power during the coalition government when the Salisbury convention was effectively suspended

Answer 3

- Parliamentary sovereignty means that parliament is far more powerful than Congress. Parliament can make constitutional laws at will, so it can more easily project its power throughout the UK system. Parliament can also make major constitutional changes, such as leaving the EU, removing the Human Rights Act and reducing the power of devolved regions - Congress is constrained by the Supreme Court and the Constitution. It cannot overturn judicial decisions or alter fundamental constitutional practices unilaterally

Answer 4

- This theory suggests that constitutional restraints on the president fail to operate, leaving Congress in a weak position to take control over US policy. Presidential use of executive orders, signing statements and executive agreements all have the effect of bypassing Congress, allowing the president to act unilaterally. - This means that the president is able to act in much the way that a UK prime Minister can. It may be that UK prime ministers are more limited, however, because they are more limited by their Cabinet in making decisions

Answer 5

- The supremacy of the House of Commons means that parliament can act decisively and exercise its power by exerting influence within the system as a whole - By contrast, the equal nature of the two US legislative chambers can weaken rather than strengthen their power. If there is conflict within Congress, with the House and the Senate disagreeing over policy, it may be unable to act

Answer 6

- Highly representative due to the separation of powers, with both chambers elected separately from the executive - Complementary representation of two years (delegates) and six years (trustees)

Answer 7

- A powerful legislative body that is able and willing to restrict executive proposals - Proactive in initiating its own legislation - High-quality legislation due to detailed scrutiny of bills, especially in powerful committees in both chambers

Answer 8

- Very high level of checks on the executive due to the separation of powers and checks and balances - Important role given to Congress in declaring war, removing a president from office and in ratifying treaties and appointments (Senate)

Answer 9

- The elected Commons is responsive to public opinion with a mandate from the people - Complementary representation in which the Commons can respond to the wishes of the people and the Lords can take a more reasoned view and consider the interests of the people

Answer 10

- Has the power to scrutinise and block bills, providing quality legislation - Government majority and influence in parliament ensure an efficient process in which bills can be passed and are agreed in timely fashion

Answer 11

- Effective checks of the executive through voting on legislation, select committees and question time - Can remove a failing government through a vote of no confidence - Checks are not excessive, allowing for strong, effective government

Answer 12

The HofRs have two year terms and separation of powers leads to high sensitivity to public opinion, specialist function of impeachment The HofCs have an elected chamber with a tradition of MPs representing all constituents, regardless of who they voted for

Answer 13

- The senate is representative due to separation of powers - Six-year term allows senators to take a more rational/ long-term view of public interests - Has a specialist function of removal from office after impeachment

Answer 14

- The HofLs serves the interests of the people because it can use its own judgment - Not strongly affected by the government/ patronage/ whips and therefore can represent the people if the government is carrying out unpopular/ undesirable policies - Lords have influence over legislation via their ability to amend and delay bills - Their expertise gives Lords authority over legislative matters - Expertise gives authority in scrutinising government actions and policies - Limits to checks (cannot block bills) ensures scrutiny but not weak government

Answer 15

- Use of FPTP elections leads to lack of voter choice and safe seats in the US - The party with the most votes does not necessarily get the most seats - Power is shared in Congress, making it extremely difficult to pass legislation - Some legislative procedures such as ‘pork barrel legislation’ are undesirable - Provides excessive checks leading to weak government, for example through legislative gridlock - Partisanship in Congress has led to unacceptably high levels of checks under divided government

Answer 16

- Use of FPTP elections leads to lack of voter choice and safe seats in the UK, as well as disproportionality between bites and seats - The party with the most votes does not necessarily get the most seats - Is mainly a reactive body considering government proposals with limited significant initiation of bills - Has a fairly limited ability and willingness to challenge government proposals - Insufficient checks on the government due to government majority/whip system and patronage - Only one chamber with significant checking power

Answer 17

- Six-year terms are arguably too long - Two senators per state leads to over-representation of small states - Use of filibuster can be seen as undemocratic and leads to ineffective government

Answer 18

- Unelected and unaccountable, Lords lack democratic legitimacy - Had limited legislative power with no power to block legislation - Amendments can be overturned by Commons - Limited by Salisbury convention in blocking bills - Has limited power to check government because it cannot overturn legislative proposals or insist on amendments

Answer 19

- It is useful in examining second chambers, explaining key differences between the Senate and the Lords. Members of the Lords are not elected and are barely subject to any patronage power. - Party unity is low, with a high number of independent crossbenchers. This allows them to be relatively free from structures and cultures. - Therefore individual Lords are more able to use their own judgment than Senators, who are limited by party and constituency expectations

Answer 20

- Useful in considering the role of parties in Congress and parliament and how that affects their powers, as well as the desirability of the legislative branches. - There are high levels of party unity in both countries, especially since the U.S. experienced a major increase in partisanship. This suggests that a desire to work with common value’s influence their political behaviour - The cultural approach can also explain the importance of conventions in Congress and Parliament. In particular, the Lords is governed by cultural expectations about roles. - The unelected nature of the Lords often means that they’re are restrained in opposing government policy, especially when this is carrying out the express will of the people - Such cultural expectations can be seen in both countries. E.g. in the US there is arguably a culture of defence to the president in foreign policy, with members of Congress being less aggressive than in domestic policy

Answer 21

- Useful in explaining key differences between the two countries’ legislatures. It can be used to show how Congress is generally far more powerful than parliament when checking and the executive - The US constitution means that Congress cannot be dominated by the executive in a way that parliament can - The difference constitutional rules regarding elections ensure that there are structural differences that can be used to compare the two countries - The constitutional requirement for elections in the Senate and life appointment in the Lords creates a major difference - It allows the Senate to be more powerful than the Lords, and also means that Senators tend to be far more aggressive in the desire to check the executive than peers

Answer 22

UK PM: - PM is a member of parliament and can come to power without an election. - PM strongly influences who voters choose as their MP. - PM and Cabinet also members of parliament. - PM and government can be removed in a vote of no confidence. Reliant on a Commons majority. - PM chairs the cabinet and heads the executive, but relies on it to take collective decisions. Relies US President: - Directly by the whole country. - Separate elections for president and congress. - Separation of powers. - President does not rely on a congressional majority to govern. - President has sole authority and greater control to head the executive branch whereas the PM is restrained by the cabinet - President is more restrained by the judiciary, whereas in the UK, the courts cannot overturn an act of parliament

Answer 23

- Both are heads of their executive branch, although with differing natures of the role. - The President is head of state, whereas in the UK, it is the monarch. The President therefore has a much greater role as a symbol of the nation - Both PM and president are chief diplomats and take a lead in international relations. In the US, the Senate can reject treaties and so can parliament, although it is unclear whether this is just a consultation procedure - The President has a constitutional role as commander in chief. Although the PM effectively has the same role, this is through the Royal Prerogative - Both the PM and President are chief legislators. In the UK, the PM can use patronage, the whips and a Commons majority to pursue their agenda, whereas in the US, whilst the President can claim a personal electoral mandate, Congress can reject his proposals

Answer 24

- Their power of patronage, the use of the whips and a majority in parliament makes it easier for them to steer their agenda through. The president doesn’t have this power owing to separation of powers and a hostile congress - Secondly, the PM in recent years has adopted a much more presidential style and has grown to dominate both the executive and parliament.

Answer 25

- Imperial presidency, executive orders, agreements and signing statements - Fractious and hostile UK cabinets can be difficult to control (think Theresa May), whereas the President dominates the executive - PMs can be restricted by parliament if they lack a majority, or have a small majority - Presidents may be as successful as PMs if they control the 2 houses of congress.

Answer 26

- Dominant political figures in their countries - Set the policy agenda - Subject to constraint by the legislature. - Subject to limits from public opinion

Answer 27

- The PM has more influence owing to being part of the legislature, the president is more constrained - President is more restrained by the judiciary, whereas in the UK, the courts cannot overturn an act of parliament - The President has far greater control of the executive branch, whereas the PM is restrained by the cabinet.

Answer 28

- PM’s power of patronage means that they can use this to maximise their power by rewarding those who are loyal. - The president doesn’t have the same privilege, although Donald Trump ensured his own position by bring like-minded people into his government and removing those who disagreed with him.

Answer 29

- Important in understanding the way in which prime ministers and presidents carry out their roles - Both operate as part of a team and a political party, and may feel the need to conform to some of the dominant value systems of their party - Conservative PMs have been curtailed by the varying extents of Euro scepticism in the party and, regardless of their own view, have had to acknowledge this

Answer 30

- The PM has a higher level of power owing to the parliamentary system. The first-past-the-post voting system usually gives their party an absolute majority of seats - The president’s position is very much kept in check by the other branches of government and the separation of powers

Answer 31

- In the US, the constitution is sovereign and the role of the Supreme Court is to uphold it. In the UK, Parliament gives authority to the UK Supreme Court to uphold acts of parliament - The key difference is that the US Supreme Court has a lot more scope and can overturn powerful elected bodies. This is not possible for the UK Supreme Court - In relation to having the final say, parliament can overturn a court decision by passing an act of parliament, whereas in the US, there would have to be a constitutional amendment, which is difficult to do - In relation to the attitude of the judges, this is much more obvious in the US because the appointment process is so politicised. Judges in the US can use the vagueness of the constitution to be quite flexible in their rulings. In the UK have the same kind of power to shape case law, but are less likely to rule against acts of parliament.

Answer 32

- High levels of independence in both countries. Politicians cannot interfere and there is security of tenure - The political nature of the appointments process in the US can threaten independence but once confirmed, Supreme Court justices make rulings on matters how they see it, not the president that appointed them - US Supreme Court justices are susceptible to more external pressures that their counterparts in the UK, particularly in areas where US society is very divided. Owing to the fact that British judges are more anonymous, they do not face the same kind of pressures

Answer 33

- The US courts have the right to overturn any institution if it is in breach of civil rights. In the UK, the court cannot do this, but can recommend to parliament a statement of incompatibility - The Human Rights Act in the UK, does however provide extensive legal protection of civil liberties - Court rulings in the US cannot be easily overturned by political bodies whereas in the UK, an act of parliament can very easily be passed - In reality however, parliament would be very unlikely to go against a court decision that has protected civil liberties

Answer 34

- The united nature of UK parties means that civil-rights-based interest groups (such as Liberty and Stonewall) may have less success in persuading legislative politicians than in the U.S. - Given the higher tendency to vote in blocks and be subject to the whip system and patronage, the success of a group may depend more on their ability to persuade party leaders

Answer 35

- This marks a central difference in explaining their relative success, with US civil rights groups enjoying a greater choice of powerful institutions to lobby and more opportunities to find a like-minded majority. - In the US a civil rights group that is troubled by a Republican majority in Congress may find access with a Democratic president. - In the UK a civil rights group that fails to convince the government is unlikely to achieve legislative success in parliament

Answer 36

- With stronger levels of rights protection in the US, civil rights groups are likely to experience far higher levels of success than in the UK - This level of rights protection helps to account for much greater prominence of civil rights groups in the US, with groups such as the ACLU and NAACP being better known than groups such as Liberty in the UK - Interest groups both in countries have been active in taking cases to court

Answer 37

- The sovereign Constitution allows US courts to overturn the actions of any institution, including Congress, if it restricts civil liberties UK courts do not have the power to overturn acts of parliament even if they restrict human rights - they can issue a statement of incompatibility, which parliament can choose to reject - Because the US has an entrenched Constitution, court rulings cannot be easily overturned by other political bodies. This is particularly important in rights protection because it involves protecting individuals against powerful elected politicians. In the UK these politicians can overturn a ruling that protects civil rights by passing a new act of parliament

Answer 38

- The UK Human Rights Act provides extensive legal protection of civil liberties - Parliament is unlikely to reject decisions made by the courts that have protected civil rights. The Human Rights Act can be described as quasi-entrenched. Despite the legal ability to remove the act, this would be politically very difficult without a reasonable degree of cross-party support. If the act is removed, it is likely to be replaced with a British bill of rights

Answer 39

- The UK arguably has a stronger tradition of respecting civil rights than in the US. The level of constitutional protection does not necessarily explain the difference between the two countries. Given the maintenance of slavery and separate facilities in the US long after they were banned in the UK, there are arguably greater concerns about racial rights in the US. In addition,, concern over minority rights protection has grown in recent years, with the Shelby ruling, the growth of state-based measures that appear to discriminate, and the Trump approach to racial issues - There have been issues in both countries about the power of the state in matters of national security, a concern that has risen since 9/11 with increased police powers in both countries. Groups such as Liberty and the ACLU have been unsuccessful in fighting aspects of legislation such as the Patriot Act and Freedom Act in the U.S. and the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and Investigatory Powers Act 2016 in the UK. The Trump presidency has increased these concerns in the United States, and the Conservative plan to remove the Human Rights Act suggests a major failure of civil rights groups in the UK

Answer 40

- Can be used to compare the two countries when judges appear to be able to act according to their own beliefs - In both countries judges have the scope to direct their own behaviour, operating as rational actors who can pursue their own ideological preferences. Despite the more apparent structures in the US, justices of the Supreme Court have much greater power as individuals to bring about change. - The power given to the judiciary by the Constitution and the vagueness of the Constitution allow US judges great scope for interpretation, allowing them to have a major impact when delivering their rulings

Answer 41

- Suggests that there is a more dominant rights-protection culture in the UK than in the U.S. It can be argued that UK citizens respect rights more than citizens in the US - In the US there are strong rival cultures based around competing parties and pressure groups that support or oppose civil rights. There are significant human rights concerns in the U.S. despite apparently stronger structures to protect civil rights

Answer 42

- Useful in helping to understand similarities and differences in the power of Judicial bodies of the two countries. The constitution strongly affects the extent to which judges have an impact on the political system as a whole. - Similar arguments can be applied when examining the level of civil rights protection, as structures having a major impact on the extent to which rights can be upheld. This suggests that the U.S. judiciary has a bigger impact on US politics and government by affecting: -Government policy (usually by overturning it) -The power of political institutions (particularly regulating their use of power) -The level of rights protection in the country

Answer 43

- Both countries have two dominant parties that have always headed the executive and dominated the legislature - The UK has a stronger third party presence, unlike the US where third parties rarely make an impact - The pendulum effect operates in both countries, although in the US it is possible for both parties to hold significant amounts of power at the same time - There are strong regional variations in the UK such as the SNP in Scotland and the parties of Northern Ireland. Coalitions are also more likely in the regional assemblies, whereas this is almost unheard of in the US.

Answer 44

- Part unity is significantly higher in the UK than the US - Parties in the US tend to be less unified than in the UK They are also much more factionalised and politicians often voting against their own party - This has less been the case since the system in the US became so polarised - The two-party system in the US suggests limited choice and restricts democracy - Party unity has an impact on the effectiveness of government - Factions and unity affect the power of party leaders, especially in the executive

Answer 45

- There are two dominant parties, with only politicians from these two main parties heading the executive in recent years. The main two parties have also dominated the legislature - Third parties have some power at regional level

Answer 46

- The UK has a stronger third-party presence than the U.S., and is arguably a multi-party system. The two main UK parties fall well below the near 100% of seats held by Democrats and Republicans in the US - The two-party system in the UK is characterised by a pendulum effect, with power typically swinging between the two. At any one point, only one party usually holds significant power in Westminster. In the United States it is common for Democrats and Republicans to hold significant power at the same time. The separation of powers allows divided government, as in the last six years of the Obama presidency - There are strong regional variations in the UK. Third parties are the dominant force in some regions, such as the SNP in Scotland (Scotland has experienced Lab-Lib Dem coalitions as well as majority and minority SNP governments) and Plaid Cymru in Wales, which often has the second-highest number of seats in the Welsh Assembly

Answer 47

- Typically champion the cause of social justice, viewing the state as having a positive role to play in society - View the system as unfair, with inequalities caused by larger processes that individuals do not always have control over - The provision of greater health care, access to education and benefits to help those who are most in need are central to the ideology of these two parties - As the founder of the NHS, the Labour Party has a long history of putting in place measures to reduce socio-economic inequality - Democrats supported the Affordable Care Act and food stamps (SNAP)

Answer 48

- Tend to favour a reduction in the role of the state - Critical of big government, attempting to reduce government expenditure as a percentage of GDP, leading to cuts to benefits when these parties have been in control - Stress personal responsibility - Conservatives introduced major welfare cuts since 2010, including the bedroom tax to reduce housing benefit - Republicans opposed the Affordable Care Act and supported cuts to food stamps (SNAP)

Answer 49

- Favour an active role for government, using economic policy to promote social justice - Favour higher government expenditure, especially on the provision of health, education and benefits - Gordon Brown and Barack Obama attempted to stimulate the economy and protect jobs through a major increase of government expenditure

Answer 50

- See government intervention in the economy as a risk to personal freedom - Favour reductions in public expenditure, especially on welfare - Champion the reduction of taxation in general, especially by reducing taxes on the wealthy - Have resisted the introduction and increase in the national minimum wage

Answer 51

- Adopt a liberal approach to civil rights - Labour Party created the Human Rights Act of 1998, the landmark law that provides legal protection of civil liberties - Democratic Party crafted both the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act in the 1960s

Answer 52

- Typically resisted or opposed extension and protection of civil rights - The Conservative and Republican Parties opposed these acts in their respective countries

Answer 53

- The issue of the two has been a highly controversial issue in both countries - In both countries legislation has been passed to regulate money and ensure greater fairness and transparency - The concerns in both countries centre around: -The influence of donors -The inequality of spending between parties -Transparency of donations, known as hard money in the US, and expenditure

Answer 54

- UK: The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, Transparency of lobbying, non-party campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 - USA: Federal Election Campaign Act 1974, The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 2002, Citizens United v FEC 2010

Answer 55

- The UK places strict limits on campaign spending, whereas no such limits exist in the US - In the UK, there are no limits on the amount an outside group can donate. In the USA this is even more the case, Super PACs etc. - The UK donations and expenditure are monitored by the Electoral Commission whereas in the US, it’s the Federal Election Commission.

Answer 56

- UK: In 2015 no group could spend more than £9750 per constituency in an election campaign - No limit on the amount an outside group can donate to a political party - US: The creation of Super PACs means that donors can give unlimited money, even if this money cannot go directly to a candidates official campaign - Donations to political parties are largely unregulated. Fahr LLC donated $67 million to candidates for different political offices, mainly to Democrats, in the two years up to the 2016 election. The second-highest spender was Renaissance Technologies, another hedge-fund company, which donated $57.7 million, splitting its money fairly evenly between the two parties

Answer 57

- Concern about the involvement of money in US and UK elections - Legal regulations of campaign finance - Donors in both countries are not particularly limited, despite campaign finance laws

Answer 58

- Influence of wealthy donors - Arron Banks in the UK (£2 million to UKIP, Koch brothers to various Republican campaigns in the US). - Inequality and fairness of elections - parties and candidates outspending each other. - Greater impact in the US? - enormous amounts spent in US elections, not surprising as it’s a bigger country. £31.1m spent in the 2010 election in the UK however.

Answer 59

- In the UK, insider and outsider status is significant, less so in the US because most interest groups can gain influence - More access points in the US pluralist system due to federalism. In the UK, most power is concentrated in the hands of central government, so it’s really only insider groups that can make an impact - US parties tend to be weaker, so pressure groups can have more influence on individual politicians - In the UK, politicians are more strongly accountable to political leaders - Can be difficult to get MPs to vote against their party line - Higher levels of rights protection help US interest groups gain influence, whereas UK groups cannot gain the same long-term policy success through the UK Supreme Court - Elections are more frequent in the US, so interest groups can target individual politicians in a way that isn’t really possible in the UK

Answer 60

- Direct action/demonstrations - Publicity - Lobbying - Legal methods (more significant in the US due to the power of the Supreme Court) - Electioneering

Answer 61

- There are more access points in the US system because the separation of powers and federalism create a multitude of power centres - In the UK, because power is concentrated in the hands of the government, the only groups that gain power are those that can influence the government

Answer 62

- The lack of powerful party leaders allows US pressure groups to influence legislative politicians more than those in the UK - Stricter party discipline in the UK means that MPs are strongly accountable to political leaders - Interest groups know it will be difficult to persuade individual MPs to vote against the party line

Answer 63

- Higher levels of rights protection help US interest groups gain greater influence than their UK counterparts - UK interest groups cannot achieve long-term policy success through Supreme Court rulings in the way that U.S. groups can

Answer 64

- Electioneering is far more intense in the US, where it can be a highly effective method - In the UK it is highly unlikely that an environmental campaign group would be able to unseat any of their target MPs in a general election. It is also hard to imagine a UK version of the U.S. League of Conservation Voters

Answer 65

- Despite the constitutional differences in the two countries and the apparent supremacy of interest groups in the US, it can be argued that there is little or no difference in the power levels of UK and US groups - The elitist argument rejects the idea that US interest groups encourage power to be shared - In practice, in both countries only a small elite has significant influence, with the majority of groups and their interests being largely ignored

Answer 66

- On policy-making, which is arguably greater in the US than UK - On the protection of civil rights - On democracy, including representation and participation

Answer 67

- Useful in comparing the two countries in relation to: individual voters, the level of rights protection, campaign finance, individual politicians - Arguably, in the U.S., individual members of the public have a greater ability to act rationally and pursue their own interests than in the UK. Greater number and frequency of elections as well as stronger rights to protection both serve to empower individuals - In both countries, self-interested actors donate money to gain political influence. Concerns over these donations have led to the imposition of structures in the form of campaign finance regulations. This creates a clash between the pursuit of rational self-interest and the structures that try to regulate it. The rational perspective is a useful theory here as the structures only provide basic restrictions. Politicians and donors are acting in a self-interested way, taking or giving funding because it helps them maintain their power without being restricted by structures or cultural expectations - The approach can also be easily applied to individual politicians. Individuals may act according to their own views or interests regardless of the wishes of the party or party leaders. This is arguably true of the US with more fragmented parties. However, there is evidence for this in the UK. The Conservative Party has long been divided on the issue of Europe, which has limited the extent to which the structure of party leaders has been able to impose its view on the rational actors within the party, who have pursued their own ideological goals

Answer 68

- Is useful in comparing groups such as voter groups, parties or factions - It is the commonly value of system of a faction or caucus that influences the behaviour of politicians in Congress and parliament - In the UK, there is a more dominant culture of party unity. The concept of a rebellion is barely applied to politicians in the US, but in the UK it is seen as more serious - The collective culture of the Freedom Caucus in the US House of Representatives is a powerful force that unites those within it, often placing it in opposition to the party leadership

Answer 69

- Can be applied to all aspects of the comparison of democracy and participation. Structures such as the constitution determine the difference in the power of US and UK voters, interest groups and parties - The separation of powers, the number of elections, and the location of sovereignty all have an impact on their relative influence - By having separate elections for the executive and legislature, the United States is arguably more democratic, giving more control to individual voters who can exercise greater choice over their elected politicians. In the UK, voters have only one choice, technically, for parliament, which them determines which party forms the government and who becomes prime minister - so the prime minister is not directly elected by the public - In the US it is common for citizens to use their ability to vote for more than one institution to 'split their ticket', voting for different parties for different offices in the same election year