There was controversy over here in the USA
recently regarding the Game of Thrones TV show, when it was revealed that a
latex head raised on the end of a stick used during a battle scene was in the
likeness of the former president, George W Bush. I found it difficult to understand the
outcry, given that the show is just a silly fantasy and there didn’t seem to be
anyone actually seriously advocating the beheading of GWB.
I tend to forget, however, that in the US, the
president is not just a political leader, but also the head of state – so in
that sense, in UK terms, he is more like the prime minister and queen
combined(!) That is why the US
president gets far more reverence than any UK PM (at
least face to face).
 |
| Barak Obama - The current President of the United States |
I’ve been trying to get my head around the US
political system ever since I got here, which isn’t all that easy as the US system
is pretty much unique and generally unlike any other.
I find it difficult to think of any other democracy in the modern age
that combines the head of state and political leader role. More often it’s only done in autocratic dictatorships
like North Korea, or Nazi Germany(!). Modern democracies typically have a ceremonial president, or a monarch to
perform symbolic duties – there are exceptions, such as France,
where the president has real political power, but nothing quite like the US.
My wife tells me that she thinks that at
the time of American Independence, they were so concerned about monarchy, or an
alternative power base appearing against the elected president, that they avoided having a separate head of
state altogether and combined the roles, which would make sense, I guess, given the historical
circumstances.
I guess there are two elements to think
about when it comes to whether a country has a president or prime minister: do
you have a presidential or parliamentary system? and do you have a separate head of state as well as a political leader?
Presidential
or parliamentary?
The US system
is designed to be more consensual than a parliamentary system. The president generally has less political
power than a PM and the system relies on a large amount of cross party
co-operation. There are far more checks
and balances than in somewhere like the UK, which tend to slow things down, but
are meant to stop extreme, or rushed laws etc. being passed.
A parliamentary system, such as the UK’s, has
confrontation built into it. The
government is meant to pursue its own agenda and everyone else does what they
can to oppose it. In most circumstances,
however, the PM leads the largest amount of elected members of parliament, so
he can push through pretty much anything he likes in a vote – all he needs usually is
the backing of his own political party.
There are also less checks and balances than in the US system.
The US system
has been getting a lot of criticism recently.
The problem is that there is deep political polarization between the
main parties and so the old consensual politics has been breaking down,
bringing the whole system into disrepute and even crisis at times. Americans tend to blame their politicians, or
the opposing political party to the one that they support, for not working
together. If you are used to a
parliamentary system where confrontation and polarization are built into the
system, however, like myself, you can sometimes wonder about the sustainability
of the US system itself, however, in the modern age.
 |
| The UK Houses of Parliament |
Apart from struggling to cope with
polarization, another downside of the US system
is that it can be very slow moving because of all the checks and balances. Things like financial crises, for example,
can happen very quickly in the modern age and governments need the ability to
react quickly.
Critics argue that the opposite is true for the UK parliamentary system - although the system is capable of moving
very quickly, there is more danger of a radical agenda, or ill thought out laws being
pushed through.
Americans tend to be very protective and
proud of their system. It was set up at
the birth of the US and is very much tied up with the whole sense of national
identity. The UK (or maybe I mean specifically England in this case?) has
been through various systems, including absolute monarchy, republican
dictatorship and parliamentary (not to mention tribalism and foreign rule) in
its long history, although it’s true to say that there has been some form of
monarchy for much of that time, certainly since the Norman invasion.
It has to be said that the US was a
much smaller country at the time of its setup, however, both in terms of
physical size and population. Plus it
was far less diverse. I get the feeling
that relying on a degree of consensus and co-operation between the political
factions was much easier back then. Having
said that, the US political system has largely functioned well enough throughout most of its
history (the Civil War being the big noticable exception).
(What is also a matter of concern is that
the modern political polarization seems to be splitting along similar geographical
lines to the old Civil War divide, with the old Confederate States generally
going one way politically and the old Northern States going the other – but
that’s another story!)
President
or monarch?
 |
| Queen Elizabeth II |
I am pretty much out of step with most of
my fellow British countrymen in that I am a republican and not a
monarchist. About 20% of Brits are
republican, according to the latest surveys.
About 30% were republican when I was a kid back in the 70s, so I think
we can safely say that the popularity of the monarchy has gradually been growing
– probably in part due to the personal popularity of Elizabeth II, the current
queen (the recent jubilee celebrations being a reminder). I think a lot of Brits also enjoy having the
monarchy as a quirky British thing, plus they see it as a source of continuity.
I can understand some of the monarchist arguments against
republicanism in the UK. What would you replace it
with? is the question most often asked.
Who would you end up with as the new, elected, republican elected ceremonial
president? Some ancient and dull
politician? Some frivolous celebrity
like a popstar, or TV chef?
All in all,
though, I just find the monarchy system more than a little archaic and I don’t
particularly like being reminded of a time when we were ruled by kings and
queens, even if nowadays they are essentially toothless.
