"There are fewer differences today between the powers of the US
President and the UK Prime Minister". Evaluate this view (30
marks).
The Prime Minister and President operate within two different political systems. Both political
systems can be regarded as western liberal democracies but Britain is a constitutional monarchy
while America is a Federal Republic. The differences between these two political systems have
repercussions for the powers of both the Prime Minister and the President. In the US there is a
written constitution which enumerates the powers and the constraints of the President. The
President is the Executive branch of Government and his powers are set out in Article 2 of the US
Constitution. In Britain the Prime Minister does not have a codified constitution that spells out the
powers of and the constraints on the British Executive. As Britain is a constitutional monarchy, the
Prime Minister shares the role of Head of State with the monarch, The powers of the Prime Minister
have evolved over hundreds of year of customs-conventions. The Prime Minister also has a number
of powers that were traditionally performed by the monarch, also known as prerogative powers.
These include his powers of patronage and his power to dissolve or recall Parliament. In Britain the
Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011 removed the Prime Ministers power to of dissolution but in August
2013 David Cameron used his powers to recall Parliament early to discuss the crisis in Syria. Both
the Prime Minister and Presidents are the heads of their respective Governments and also the
leaders of their respective political parties. They are both the Commander in Chief although in the
case of the US President this role is enumerated in Article 2, section 2 of the US Constitution. In
terms of their respective executives the British executive is collective while the US executive is
singular. The Prime Minister sits at the head of a cabinet that operates under the doctrine of
'collective responsibility' while the 'United States executive is a club of one' - Nigel Bowles. I will now
examine the view that the Prime Minister and President have became similar in terms of their
powers.
One of the key powers that both the Prime Minister and President possess is the role of
Commander in Chief. While the President can negotiate foreign treaties, these must be
ratified by the Senate. Presidents seal of office shows an eagle clutching a bundle of arrows in one
claw which signifies the commander-in-chief role and the Olive branch highlights the peace-making
role. Modern day presidents have used this power to negotiate such treaties such as the Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty (Ronald Regan), the Chemical Weapons Ban (G.W.Bush) and a nuclear arms
treaty with Russia (Barack Obama). The president's power is checked by the Senate who has to ratify
treaties with a 2/3’s majority and during 20th century Senate rejected seven treaties. In 2010
President Obama negotiated the START treaty which was ratified by the Senate in a 71-26 majority.
Executive agreements on the other hand do not require congressional approval but will lapse when
that particular executive comes to the end of their term. The Prime Minister and the President are
both the Commander in Chief of their respective armed forces. However the Prime Minister is not
strictly speaking the British Head of State so Her Majesty's armed forces is still the title of the army,
navy and air force. In practice however the Prime Minister determines armed forces intervention
both domestically and in foreign affairs. Thus the decision to take part in military action against Libya
in 2011 was taken by David Cameron and did not require parliamentary approval. The events of
September 2013 when David Cameron plans for military intervention in Syria were defeated in the
House of Commons illustrates that legislative approval clearly gives legitimacy to the Prime Minister
as Commander in Chief, although it is not 'constitutionally' required. In reality decisions taken by the
President and the UK Prime Minister". Evaluate this view (30
marks).
The Prime Minister and President operate within two different political systems. Both political
systems can be regarded as western liberal democracies but Britain is a constitutional monarchy
while America is a Federal Republic. The differences between these two political systems have
repercussions for the powers of both the Prime Minister and the President. In the US there is a
written constitution which enumerates the powers and the constraints of the President. The
President is the Executive branch of Government and his powers are set out in Article 2 of the US
Constitution. In Britain the Prime Minister does not have a codified constitution that spells out the
powers of and the constraints on the British Executive. As Britain is a constitutional monarchy, the
Prime Minister shares the role of Head of State with the monarch, The powers of the Prime Minister
have evolved over hundreds of year of customs-conventions. The Prime Minister also has a number
of powers that were traditionally performed by the monarch, also known as prerogative powers.
These include his powers of patronage and his power to dissolve or recall Parliament. In Britain the
Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011 removed the Prime Ministers power to of dissolution but in August
2013 David Cameron used his powers to recall Parliament early to discuss the crisis in Syria. Both
the Prime Minister and Presidents are the heads of their respective Governments and also the
leaders of their respective political parties. They are both the Commander in Chief although in the
case of the US President this role is enumerated in Article 2, section 2 of the US Constitution. In
terms of their respective executives the British executive is collective while the US executive is
singular. The Prime Minister sits at the head of a cabinet that operates under the doctrine of
'collective responsibility' while the 'United States executive is a club of one' - Nigel Bowles. I will now
examine the view that the Prime Minister and President have became similar in terms of their
powers.
One of the key powers that both the Prime Minister and President possess is the role of
Commander in Chief. While the President can negotiate foreign treaties, these must be
ratified by the Senate. Presidents seal of office shows an eagle clutching a bundle of arrows in one
claw which signifies the commander-in-chief role and the Olive branch highlights the peace-making
role. Modern day presidents have used this power to negotiate such treaties such as the Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty (Ronald Regan), the Chemical Weapons Ban (G.W.Bush) and a nuclear arms
treaty with Russia (Barack Obama). The president's power is checked by the Senate who has to ratify
treaties with a 2/3’s majority and during 20th century Senate rejected seven treaties. In 2010
President Obama negotiated the START treaty which was ratified by the Senate in a 71-26 majority.
Executive agreements on the other hand do not require congressional approval but will lapse when
that particular executive comes to the end of their term. The Prime Minister and the President are
both the Commander in Chief of their respective armed forces. However the Prime Minister is not
strictly speaking the British Head of State so Her Majesty's armed forces is still the title of the army,
navy and air force. In practice however the Prime Minister determines armed forces intervention
both domestically and in foreign affairs. Thus the decision to take part in military action against Libya
in 2011 was taken by David Cameron and did not require parliamentary approval. The events of
September 2013 when David Cameron plans for military intervention in Syria were defeated in the
House of Commons illustrates that legislative approval clearly gives legitimacy to the Prime Minister
as Commander in Chief, although it is not 'constitutionally' required. In reality decisions taken by the
