One major achievement of the founders of America is the development of an effective constitutional framework of the political institutions. The United States constitution is based on separation of powers and federalism. The two components are a representation of the framers efforts to divide the power among the various governing bodies.
Federalism
On one hand, federalism limits the powers of the government by establishing two models which are the national and state governments. As such, power restriction is observed from each party.
On the other hand, separation of powers fosters internal limits by dividing the national and state governments. The governments are impelled to create various branches which are forced to share power depending on their specific functions. Contrary to the American government model, the British framework is asymmetric such that power is consolidated and exercises by the few elites.
The British system is therefore said to be unitary given that the parliament can make laws on any issue but the local authority makes laws depending on the powers delegated by the national government. The two countries are developed and influence the global affairs but operate different models. Consolidation and separation of powers produce different governing effects as examined in the rest of this essay.
American Government System
The model of power separation delegates duties of the state into three divisions; the judicial, legislative and executive. The tasks are allocated in such a way that each function is able to check the powers of the others. Subsequently, it is not possible for any institution to become powerful as to destroy democracy. The interaction between the three powers is equal and balanced. According to Weiner[1], separation of power is provided in the constitution as a critical component of the Rule of Law.
The legislative power designs and passes policies, and manages the implementation process. The parliament, which includes the National and Federal councils acts as the legislature and is therefore mandated to pass laws that affect the welfare of the population. The executive branch on the other hand implements the laws passed by the legislature. All the federal authorities including the president make up the executive. The other branch is the judiciary which administers justice impartially. The judges ensure that all the passed laws are adhered to.
The separation of powers system can be explained through the two-prolonged initiative[2]. The approach is of the belief that when all powers are given to one function, the outcome is usually a tyranny. A such, a countering government institution led to the creation of the two-prolong approach to the government by the Framers. Prong 1 is the doctrine of power separation that gives the three branches of government independence. Each function has the mandate of performing the assigned tasks without interfering with the activities of others. Prong 2 is the principle of checks and balances that counters impositions from one branch to the other.
Federalism
As federalism, the US government utilizes a system in which power is divided between the national and local authorities. Both governments constitute sovereignty over the other. Notably, the creators of the system, the framers, foresaw a unitary structure but given that both of the governments had well-established and functional political institutions, the states were maintained. However, there are some powers which were reserved to the national government and they include an avenue for development into the implied powers. The states can however not discriminate anyone from other states. Both governments are supposed to uphold the social, economic and political rights of the population with the national government being the highest form of control.
Republican/Democrat
America is a two-party system, the Democrats or Republican movement. Every four years, contests in both parties adopt centrist political models and in most instances, they differ on matters to do with foreign affairs. At the state level however, the diversity of the people is observed with Democrats in the Southern States said to be more conservative than those in the New England for instance. As such, the government is either a Republican or a Democrat depending on the party of the winning candidate.
Constitutional
Signed in 1787, the constitution establishes the government and important laws that guarantee the humanitarian, social, economic, and political rights of the population[3]. The government operates under the Rule of Law identified as the constitution. As such, power is disbursed to the various authorities through the constitution.
Effects of Separation of Power on Governance
In essence, the American government is based on the separation of powers system. No authority is superior to the other. However, each function must observe the constitution when implementing its mandate. The impact of the system on the population is that it promotes democracy. Since each sector is able to check the activities of the others and power is distributed equally, adverse dictatorship is limited. The rights of people are upheld since decentralization means that the leaders can promote the agenda of the government at an individual level. The states are positioned to deal with the specific problems facing its members without being subjected to bureaucracies. In addition, the president cannot make personal and rush decisions that are inconsiderate of the interests of the nation given that all other players must be involved in the solution making process.
Although there are many benefits attributed to power separation, the system gives rise to divisions when there are many alternatives to a solution. States have the power to implement laws without consulting with other members. As such, the rights of citizens may be infringed. For example, not all states have passed the policy giving the LGBT community the rights to marriage. The implementation of agendas differs across the states and as such, the outcomes for the populations vary.
British Government System
Britain has over the decades maintained the constitutional monarchy form of governance[4]. There is no binding and written constitution. The existing constitutions are in various forms and not like the particular one that is used in the USA. The greatest component defining the British constitution is the convention. The members of the convention are elected by popular vote and are responsible for drafting new or amending the existing constitution. Presently, no major party forms the government such that after the 2010 elections, the Conservatives had to form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats.
Rather than separation of powers, the British government is more consolidated in what is termed as Fusion of Powers. The three branches are therefore integrated with each other. As such, the Prime Minister interacts with the House of Commons. Unlike the judiciary of America which can independently declare a certain law unconstitutional, the Supreme Court of Britain depends on the reviews of the judicial.
The Prime Minister (PM) of Britain has unlimited powers though they can be affected by the dominance of the members of his party in the House of Commons. A majority in the House of Commons implies that the government and the PM are able to pass more policies without restrictions. As such, a Prime Minister that has a big number of members in the House of Commons is positioned to change the British system in the course of his authority. Notably, there is no limit to the number of times a PM can be re-elected but in America, the president can only be re-elected twice.
Effects of the Consolidation System on Governance
Although the British government is not entirely consolidated, the fact that the powers of the PM depend on his representation in the House of Commons implies that he or she makes most critical decisions on for the people. If the members of the PM party are many, it means that more policies can be made without interference. The system is therefore centralized which means that the rights of the people are affected by the leadership style of the PM. As such, it is upon the people to elect a PM that is capable of leading the nation to success without being affected by personal interests. Since there are no strict checks on the government, the government may be in jeopardy if the PM makes unreasonable policies.
Notably, the consolidation of power means that the various government are entangled and can share ideas before formulation of policies that have substantial repercussions on the social, economic, and political state of the country. The consolidation promotes oneness and establishes a society that depends on each other to conduct day-to-day activities. For instance, the High Court cannot make a decision without getting the reviews from the judicial commission. As such, the members are more likely to conduct intensive research before making conclusive decisions to avoid negative review. In addition, by consolidating power, other authorities are positioned to make corrections when there is a mismatch between the goals of a plan and the implementation process or outcomes. It is therefore an advantage for the British people to be ruled under the consolidation system since it gives the government an opportunity to deliberate on possible causes of action and seek guidance from other members for sustainable solutions. The interference by other members when the PM lacks enough support is also a guarantee to the people that informed decisions will be upheld[5].
Conclusion
The power-sharing and consolidation models are different but the outcomes should be the same since governments are placed in power to serve the population. The power-sharing model ensures that the government is kept in checks by other states so that no personalized or hasty decisions are made. The consolidation model positions the various branches in a manner that they can consult with other players to make informed decisions.
Bibliography
Bayly, Christopher Alan. Imperial Meridian: The British Empire and the World 1780-1830. Routledge, 2016.
Michaels, Jon D. "Separation of Powers and Centripetal Forces: Implications for the Institutional Design and Constitutionality of Our National-Security State." U. Chi. L. Rev. 83 (2016): 199.
Tilly, Charles. "From mobilization to revolution." In Collective Violence, Contentious Politics, and Social Change, pp. 71-91. Routledge, 2017.
Weiner, Greg. ‘’Separation of Power. “ The Encyclopedia of Political Thought 92015)
[1] Weiner, Greg. "Separation of Powers." The Encyclopedia of Political Thought (2015).
Ipid, 3
[3]
Michaels, Jon D. "Separation of Powers and Centripetal Forces: Implications for the Institutional Design and Constitutionality of Our National-Security State." U. Chi. L. Rev. 83 (2016): 199.
[4]
Bayly, Christopher Alan. Imperial Meridian: The British Empire and the World 1780-1830. Routledge, 2016.
[5][5][5] Tilly, Charles. "From mobilization to revolution." In Collective Violence, Contentious Politics, and Social Change, pp. 71-91. Routledge, 2017.
