BF2S Forums Systems of Government

Think the upper/lower house is a typical British thing, other than that the rest applies for Norway also and most other countries i can think of atm !

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Here in Europe we have adopted parliamentary democracy as our preferred system of government. We generally have an upper house/senate (séanaid) and a lower house/parliament (Dáil). Each country generally has a prime minister (taoiseach) and a cabinet of ministers responsible for various government portfolios.

Don't you maan "Here in Ireland"?  Most of Europe have presidents don't they which follows their lack of Royal Family.

But then again they also have a prime minister and a cabinet of ministers !

The president in European countries is not all powerful

Last edited by Varegg (2007-05-03 02:20:51)

Rosse_modest wrote:

Varegg wrote:

The president in European countries is not all powerful

Their function leans more towards the ceremonial.

Kind of like the Queen to all commonwealth countriesAustralia, Still technically head of state with the power to veto any Parliament decision, But has never used such power, and can't ever see the power being used.

Last edited by DrunkFace (2007-05-03 03:41:51)

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Here in Europe we have adopted parliamentary democracy as our preferred system of government. We generally have an upper house/senate (séanaid) and a lower house/parliament (Dáil). Each country generally has a prime minister (taoiseach) and a cabinet of ministers responsible for various government portfolios.

Don't you maan "Here in Ireland"?  Most of Europe have presidents don't they which follows their lack of Royal Family.

Most presidents in Europe are, as stated in the thread, largely ceremonial and hold no realistic political power. They don't make policy for instance.

The US works with 3 arms of government - executive President & Cabinet), legislative (Congress & Senate) & judiciary.

Most European countries, and Westiminster systems (i.e. the UK model), have  this in theory, but the executive is the party with a majority in the legislature. So the legislative usually doesn't act as a check & balance on the executive because the dominant party is one and the same. Democracy works best when it has checks and balances, and transparency.

In "European" systems the president or monarch is little more than figure head, with technically the power to veto or overrule but in practice they usually do little. In Australia GG Kerr sacking PM Whitlam in 1973 was the only time the GG has done something like that, and he appointed Opposition Leader Fraser as a caretaker until next elections which were ASAP, Kerr didn't "take over".

Proportionate voting, rather than first past the post, makes a big difference, because it gets away from 2 major parties swapping government. You end up with more coalition governments, and more consensus. But it can also cause instability when coalitions break up (Italy, Germany's Grand Coalition), and they sometimes won't make hard decisions because not everyone can agree (Germany at times with economic reform over the last 10 years).

Both the US and Westminster systems have their own strengths and weaknesses. They also have many of the same flaws. Western governments in general seem to be having many of the same problems over the last 30 years, much of it arising from the use of the media and the professionalisation of the politicians and hangers on.

The problem when Bush argues with Congress is that they can both claim they were voted in by the voters. So who trumps who? Check the document written by some slave owners over 200 years ago. Having said that Jackson, Hamilton & co were canny operators and most of what they wanted the system to do then still remains true now.

Churchill once said - democracy isn't the best political system, it's the least bad.

Except of course for putting me in charge of the world as a benevolent dictator ... but I'm still working on that.

CameronPoe wrote:

What think ye of the respective ways of doing things?

I think that different cultures have different and relative "acceptable" ways of doing things.  For intelligent and responsible individuals, communism would work out great.  Sadly, there aren't enough such peoples to ever make it work on a large scale.  Democracy works for a while, but it deteriorates over time, as we're seeing now, into less and less of what it was originally envisioned to be.  Provisions need to be put in place to tear the government down and rebuild it if Democracy is to have any longevity.

Really, any system of government is as good as another so long as the leaders are responsible and intelligent.  The problem with all of these governments is that the leaders inevitably AREN'T and they each break down in their unique way.  This inevitable breakdown is ultimately pointed to as the problem with that system of government and is viewed thereafter to embody that system rather than be an errant breakdown thereof.  I truly believe that most systems of government were conceived out of necessity and filled a need in a responsible fashion at one point or another.  The issue is personal accountability and the necessity to rebuild every few centuries and re-evaluate everything.