political science

Chapter 7. Parliamentary Democracy: Pros and Cons of Perishable Governments

Learning Objectives

· 1Describe Aristotle’s concept of a mixed regime, and identify a modern political system that perhaps best embodies the Aristotelian model.

· 2Compare the U.S. presidential model to British-style parliamentary systems.

· 3Argue the case both for and against a powerful executive branch.

· 4Compare and contrast the executives in the UK, Germany, and France.

· 5Compare and contrast the British parliament and the U.S. Congress.

· 6Explain the view that Japanese government and society is Western in form but Japanese in substance.

· 7Identify the obstacles to parliamentary democracy in India and Israel compared to countries in Western Europe.

We have not only to study the ideally best constitution. We have also to study the type of constitution which is practicable [that is, the best for a state under actual conditions]…. The sort of constitutional system which ought to be proposed is one which men can be easily induced, and will be readily able, to graft onto the system they already have.

Aristotle, The Politics *

Long ago, the great Greek philosopher Aristotle made a compelling case for the systematic comparison of political systems. Today, the value of comparative political analysis is widely recognized in the discipline. We have seen that strikingly different forms of government are possible—democratic, authoritarian, and totalitarian—and that there are many permutations of each form. Authoritarian regimes, for example, can be monarchies, military juntas, theocracies, and so on. Democracies also vary widely, as we noted in Chapter 4. The form of democracy found in the United States is the one Americans know best, of course, but most Europeans are far more familiar with a very different model of democracy, one that originated in England—a country that is separated from the Continent by a narrow expanse of water and a wide expanse of history and culture.

In this chapter, we compare parliamentary democracies with a view to identifying how they differ between and among each other. We also ask what variations appear to result in dysfunctional systems and whether or not remedies are available. Finally, we ask how parliamentary systems compare to our own and revisit the question asked in Chapter 4: Which model of democracy works better?

Great Britain: Mother of All Parliaments

The British system has its origins in horticulture, not architecture. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, it is not based on a blueprint devised by rational minds. Instead, it grew out of England’s unique history and geography and its evolving political culture. The organic nature of the British parliamentary system raises an obvious question about whether it can be transplanted, but first we take a closer look at this unique representative democracy.

The political system that formed after the American Revolution represented a sharp break with the European autocratic tradition, and it required a fresh political theory. Although there is no British counterpart to The Federalist Papers, we find a sort of homegrown theory of British-style democracy in the writings and speeches of Edmund Burke. Burke detailed Britain’s long unbroken chain of political development, during which, significantly, economic equality and political liberty expanded together. As the monarchy declined in power, British government became increasingly democratic, evolving into a parliamentary system. It was gradually established that the British monarch would automatically accept Parliament’s choice of prime minister (PM). In time, the PM eclipsed the monarch as the head of government. Today, the monarch Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state but with no executive power—a beloved figurehead.

iStockphoto.com/Chris Jackson

The United Kingdom’s Queen Elizabeth II is a beloved monarch who reigns but does