For more information
Call 1-800-351-0222

PARLIAMENTARY FORM OF GOVERNMENT.
  Term Paper ID:29802 		Get This Paper Free! or
Essay Subject:
Discusses the political systems of France and Great Britain.... More...
7 Pages / 1575 Words
4 sources, 14 Citations, APA Format
$28.00

More Papers on This Topic


Paper Abstract:
Discusses the political systems of France and Great Britain. Contends both are fractious systems that divide multi-party governing bodies resulting in unstable governments of short durations. Great Britain's parliamentary democracy. Reliance upon two competing political parties. France's multiplicity of political parties. The country's mixed presidential-parliamentary system.

Paper Introduction:
GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE: RECIPES FOR FAILURE? The world plays host to many forms of government; an interesting hypothesis to consider today pertains to the parliamentary system, as is used in Great Britain, and the mixed presidential-parliamentary system, as is used in France. The hypothesis we will consider in this examination follows: The systems utilized in the UK and in France are ultimately recipes for failure. They are each inherently fractious systems which produce divided, multi-party governing bodies. As a result, they are unstable, creating governments of short duration, and they are inefficient, poorly fulfilling the representative objectives to which they aspire. For the purposes of this examination, we will measure this hypothesis against the evidence; each of these nations provides relevant fac

Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.


About France, French Politics, the PoliticalSystem and the French Political Parties. As isposited in our hypothesis, the mixed presidential-parliamentary system is adivided system, with consent fragmented among the populace. How is Britain Governed? The new nation would perhaps be well advised to consider these pointswhen searching for a constitution. Retrieved April 27, 2 from theWorld Wide Web: www.geocities.com/~france Weir, Stuart.(1994) A Weak Constitution: Compared With Other WesternNations, Britain Gives Little Power to the People. In the French system, the electorate is splintered. Retrieved April28, 2 from the World Wide Web: www.britain-info.org Britain in the USA(1999). The hypothesis we will consider in this examinationfollows: The systems utilized in the UK and in France are ultimately recipesfor failure. Governments are re-inventing themselves regularly, perhaps to thedetriment of society as a whole. The leader of the party which wins the most seats at a generalelection is invited to form a government, and he or she then becomes PrimeMinister (BITUSA, 1999). Parliamentary Elections: The Party System.Retrieved April 29, 2 from the World Wide Web: www.britain-info.org The Mauduit Group(1998). In light of these observations, our initial hypothesis is both upheldand discredited. Distinct currentswithin these three political movements can confuse; integration among smallparties occurs as do splits and counter-movements (The Mauduit Group,1998). Weir states, "Our executive canbegin wars or make treaties, and tell parliament afterwards". As a result, they are unstable,creating governments of short duration, and they are inefficient, poorlyfulfilling the representative objectives to which they aspire.For the purposes of this examination, we will measure this hypothesisagainst the evidence; each of these nations provides relevant facts thatsupport and contradict the above claim, leaving the inquisitive theorist toponder if either system can be deemed ideal in a modern global context. New Statesman & Society,v7 n3 pB22(2). Inthis election, the two candidates who won the most votes on the firstballot together received only 44% of the total votes cast, leaving thevotes of the remaining 56% of the population scattered among a spate ofother presidential hopefuls. The Gaullistmovement, the liberal-centrists, the Socialists, the Communists and the far-right all infiltrate the French system, with each achieving variablesuccess. This is true simply because inan environment like the one we have explored in France, if the majority ofvoters do not support the leaders in office, then clearly they are notbeing represented by those leaders adequately. Thus, the power of the nation is vested in the hands of the few, andmajority representation is compromised, if not surrendered. Thus, the mixedpresidential-parliamentary system in France cannot be deemed to be trulyefficient, and once again our hypothesis has been supported. TheBritish Parliament has three components: the House of Commons (1), anelected body consisting of 659 paid members, the House of Lords(2), anunelected body consisting of hereditary members, senior bishops of theChurch, and others nominated mainly by the major political parties, and theMonarchy(3), an unelected post- largely ceremonial and necessarilyimpartial. It must be understood that as a society becomes more fragmented, so itbecomes less satisfied with its leadership. In this, our hypothesis hasfulfilled another one of its claims: that a parliamentary government is adivided, multi-party government. They are each inherently fractious systems which producedivided, multi-party governing bodies. Since the close of World War II, the Labor Partyand the Conservative Party have dominated the system, with the Labor Partywinning 7 general elections in that time and the Conservative Party winning8(BITUSA, 1999). Of these, only three are true potential governing parties: theGaullists, the liberal-centrists, and the Socialists. Clearly, the fact that power haschanged hands 15 times in 55 years indicates that one of the contentions inour hypothesis is correct: that the parliamentary system createsgovernments of short duration. Indeed,the problems faced by the governments of these nations are not unique; thebest year for voter turnout in the United States is not nearly asimpressive as France's voter turnout in its worst year, and the two-partydomination exhibited in Britain is surely reminiscent of the AmericanRepublican-Democrat bipolarity that has been in place for generations. The result: of course, a multi-party system is established. Nosystem is without flaws. These three major parties (as well as a series of minor parties)establish the British parliamentary system as a multi-party system; thisnaturally divides the population and subsequently creates a minoritygovernment in the parliament (Weir, 1994). The world plays host to many forms of government; an interestinghypothesis to consider today pertains to the parliamentary system, as isused in Great Britain, and the mixed presidential-parliamentary system, asis used in France. REFERENCES: Britain in the USA(1999). In recent elections, electoralparticipation has fallen off. The parliamentary system in Britain and the mixed presidential-parliamentary system in France certainly seem to be consistent with ourinitial hypothesis on most points. The parliamentary system in Britain relies upon the existence of atleast two competing political parties in the House of Commons (BITUSA,1999). The details surrounding democratic rulecan be vastly different from country to country, but the big picture willoften reveal just as many similarities as differences. And the literatureregarding the French system does mention that the multiplicity of politicalparties that have emerged during the Fifth Republic have not ultimatelydisrupted the overall stability of the nation (Mauduit, 1998). Each of the parties represented in the House of Commons is fullycapable of forming its own government, and within parliament those partiesretain their organization in order to maintain voting strength (BITUSA,1999). Ultimately, this renders the mixedpresidential-parliamentary system fragile; though federated and unifiedparties have recently won more favor with the electorate than theirmultifaceted counterparts, the constant evolution of the political partysystem in France tends to create a climate of change (Mauduit, 1998). In 1995 thepresidential elections illustrated the extent to which this is true. Obviously, the party in power in the British parliament possessessovereignty over the nation; this fact is troubling once we recognize thatit is a minority government that is created in a multi-party system. The Liberal Democrats, formed in 1988, represent anothermajor party in the British system. On the one hand, it would seem that such a system createsinefficiency: parliamentary sovereignty is not popular sovereignty, andtherefore the masses are not represented adequately under this arrangement. A mixed presidential-parliamentary system, France host a multiplicity of political parties.Dominated by five major currents which win representation in thegovernment, the French system is a challenge to decipher. On the other hand, the parliamentary system in Great Britain can be seenas very efficient: As Weir reveals, the power of the executive is nearlyunchecked; therefore, he may act swiftly. In this,government gridlock may be effectively circumvented, and policyimplementation is relatively unfettered. However, is it safe to assume thatthese systems are "recipes for disaster"? GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE: RECIPES FOR FAILURE? And, theexecutive branch of the British parliamentary system enjoys privileges thatprovide a degree of immunity from the need to achieve popular consent;Britain has no written constitution outlining the rights of the governed,therefore the rights and liberties of British citizens are not protected byany special laws that the government cannot easily change(Weir, 1994).Weir writes that "Britain does not make the executive subject to the ruleof law...Instead, the executive, through its creature Parliament, canchange any law of the land by a simple majority of one vote". The varying wheelsof democracy certainly show different spokes, but they all turn just thesame- it's only the road we can't be sure of. Jointly, the three governing bodies pass laws, provide thegovernment with funds, and(in the House of Lords) debate policy andrelevant issues of the day(Britain in the USA, 1999). Great Britain is a parliamentary democracy in which citizens have theright to vote for the parliament and government of their choice. Though this study would indicate that neither the parliamentary systemnor the mixed presidential-parliamentary system is ideal in the modernglobal arena, they should not be dismissed as failures, either. Opposing parties in recent electionshave incorporated into their platforms viewpoints traditionally associatedwith their opponents, and the lack of ideological confrontation thatfollows seems to confuse voters; political party compromises initiallyarouse suspicion, which in turn creates a sense of apathy (Mauduit, 1998). In 1995, the proportion of French votersrefusing to make an electoral commitment was at its highest since universalsuffrage was introduced 35 years ago. The British system ofparliamentary democracy has been based on political parties competing toform governments for over 15 years (BITUSA, 1999). France utilizes a different system. Inhis 1994 article, British political theorist Stuart Weir sums up the effectof the multi-party system when he writes, "we are unique among westernnations in giving a single party control of both government and the popularassembly based on a minority of the vote at general elections"(Weir, 1994).

If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:

Search for:

or

We can write a Custom Essay just for you.


Browse Essays by Subject