![]() ![]() Members of the majority party are rarely if ever unanimous in their views, but as party leader, the prime minister can kick them out of the party if they won’t do what he wants. The queen appoints the leader of the majority party in Parliament as her prime minister the prime minister decides which bills Parliament votes on and then those bills are granted the queen’s royal assent on the advice of the prime minister. The prime minister, however, is elected by the House of Commons rather than directly by the voters.Īll powers, in other words, are effectively held by the parliamentary majority party. Over time, however, the Lords were stripped of almost all their real power and a new tradition developed in which the queen would act exclusively on the advice of her prime minister. And the American political system operates on a kind of analogy to that 18th-century version of British institutions, with the president playing the role of the king (or queen), the Senate the role of the House of Lords, and the House of Representatives the role of the House of Commons. Initially, Parliament evolved as an institution that existed to check and balance the power of the monarch. The UK famously lacks a written constitution.īut an old quip has it that you can sum up the whole thing with eight words: “What the Queen-in-Parliament enacts is law.” Britain’s eight-word constitution and how it constructs its government, explained The UK’s problem today is the consequence of a 2011 law that was passed to address a particular set of circumstances but has turned out to have wide-ranging implications for a variety of situations - including introducing the novelty of deadlocks into a system that is not accustomed to them. It’s something that is inconceivable in Latin American countries or under a Westminster-style Parliament - at least in theory. The American system has fewer wild swings in policy trajectory but also makes the total breakdown of the political system that is possible in the US common. It’s something that looks much more like an American-style “separation of powers” system than the traditional British fusion of power. Johnson, in an effort to get the MPs in line, wants to hold a fresh election that he thinks will give him a majority of like-minded parliamentarians.īut at the moment, it looks like he’s not going to get what he wants and Parliament is going to pass measures over his opposition. Then enough Conservative MPs joined with the opposition parties to take control of the parliamentary agenda from Johnson, setting them up to pass a bill that would explicitly constrain him on Brexit. But that prompted a member of his Conservative Party to defect to the centrist Liberal Democrats, costing Johnson his already minuscule parliamentary majority. He decided to “prorogue” - that is, temporarily suspend - Parliament for a few weeks in order to shrink the time it had to come up with legislation to thwart his plans. Fans of parliamentary government have long touted the notion that the British political system could - at least in theory - never get deadlocked in quite the same way as the American system, in which executive and legislative deadlock has become something of a signature feature.īut this week, the story looks different, as the United Kingdom is currently bogged down in an intractable deadlock between the executive and legislative branches of government over how to approach the looming deadline for Brexit.įirst, Prime Minister Theresa May was unable to secure a parliamentary majority for her preferred approach to Brexit, which led to her resignation and replacement by current Prime Minister Boris Johnson.īut Johnson can no more secure a majority for his approach than May could, and his determination to try to push forward anyway has generated a week of political crisis. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |