In this section we explore in some detail the level of independence and potential policy-making roles of presidential (US), parliamentary (UK) and hybrid (France) legislatures, and comment on some systems that combine characteristics of the three types. The degree of separation or unity between the legislative and executive powers illustrated in these models is probably the single most important factor in determining the potential strength and independence of a legislature.
Parliamentary (UK): Because of the substantial unity between the legislative and executive branches, the House of Commons plays a relatively minor policy-making role in the UK. In parliamentary systems, the parliamentary majority party or coalition selects the chief executive from among its members. Cabinet members are also named from the parliamentary majority. Therefore, obviously in parliamentary systems, the executive and legislature cannot be controlled by different parties.
The prime minister, cabinet and bureaucracy control the legislative agenda and the budget, and individual MPs have little power to introduce their own initiatives. Legislative amendments are very narrow and technical, and committee staff are quite small (Australia is an exception, with a larger staff system than that of the UK). Party caucuses, rather than committees, tend to make the important policy decisions.
A vote of no confidence in the government results in both the government and parliament leaving office, so majority parliamentary and executive leaders do all they can to avoid such a vote. The system tends not to support the development of strong, aggressive committees able to challenge the executive – and to challenge the implementation of a platform on which the majority of the parliamentarians were elected. Overt executive occurs when legislative conflict is not common in parliamentary systems, nor is the parliament likely to exercise aggressive oversight. Divisions within the governing coalition however, will reduce this executive when there is parliamentary unity.
In true parliaments political parties are generally well disciplined; voting against one’s party is rare and can endanger one’s future with the party. MPs will likely conform to the responsible party model (page 10). The government’s survival depends on a cohesive majority party, generally characterized by strong discipline, bloc voting and distinct party platforms. Similarly, opposition parties will have little likelihood of replacing the government in power if they are not able to count on the votes of theirconstituents.
In addition to the United Kingdom, much of continental Europe, and most of the former British colonies in Africa and Asia and most Caribbean nations have adopted some variation of parliamentary system. Several former British colonies are not pure parliamentary systems, but mix characteristics of both parliamentary and presidential systems (see Table 4). The worldwide network of parliaments based on the Westminster system (the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association) has been both a means of socializing parliamentary members and staff from scores of nations into the traditions and trappings of the Westminster system, and also of sharing issues and parliamentary developments among members.
|
