Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction
The current research paper provides with comprehensive analysis of the law-making process and the structure of the British Parliament and American Congress. These two institutions represent the paramount of constitutionalism in the West but are distinct in many respects and hence require careful comparative analysis.
Laws are passed faster in Great Britain than in US Congress because there is less interaction from an average citizen at the national level. Every citizen is represented in Congress in two ways by three people. Each citizen has two U.S senators who represent them as residents of state. Each citizen also has one U.S representative who speaks for them as a resident of a congressional district. Senators and representatives thus face different challenges, yet they must somehow reach agreements from these different perspectives. The system as a whole is developed to serve the cause of stability which often frustrates those people who are accustomed to political rivalries and opposition.
Main text
It seems that there is greater involvement and representation of the public and their wishes in the American government than there is in the British government. When the citizens are accorded greater involvement in the government, it then follows that the law takes a long time to be passed. This could be difficult because the wishes of the citizens are varied and it becomes difficult to know which ones to give priority and which ones not to. The legislators are therefore faced with a daunting task. The citizens take the legislators to parliament expecting them to support and pass the laws and policies they support. They also expect them to oppose laws that they do not support. The legislators try their best to do this as they know that they depend on the constituents to get into parliament.
Legislators are usually influenced by organized interest groups in disproportionate ways. Not all mistakes found in the political process and identified by interest groups do stand in the way of particular political outcomes. However the law-making process cannot be excluded from interest groups because it is assumed that interest groups represent ordinary citizens. Their involvement in policy-making improves the processes of decision-making.
Citizens, as expected support policies that meet their demands. On the other hand they block policies they feel only reflect the interests of those in power. Interest groups sometimes make it almost impossible for policy-makers to implement policies that are best in terms of efficiency especially if such policies usually impose costs on sections of the public in the long run. Economic growth may occur at a slow pace because of rivalry between interest groups over the distribution of economic gains. (Olson, 1963, pg 243).
The ever present threat of policy influence by interest group was something that was detected early by the makers of the constitution of the US. To counter this threat, a constitutional system of republican government that takes into account interest groups was formed. This system allows interest groups to employ various ways of weighing in on policy-making. James Madison made the case for constitutional criticism. He pointed out that the problem of interest groups in his theory of republican democracy. He warns of the mischief of factions in “Federalist no. 10, 4”pg 85. He asserts that interest groups could threaten personal liberty or the liberty of other groups. (Goldstein, pg144).
There are a number of ways through which interest groups try to influence the law-making process. These include;
- The hiring of representatives to act on their behalf and put their agenda across. Activities related to lobbying include liaising with the executive branch and Congress. The objective of this is to discuss what they feel are the positive and negative effects of proposed legislation that are proposed.
- They also participate in election activities: they try very hard to influence elections in order to ensure election or re-election of people who support their grievances. Having people subscribe to their ideas ensures that they have effects on the law-making process.
- Other than the above they mobilize members of the public. Many groups rely on the efforts of people who are motivated to act on their behalf in order to influence policy-making. They write them letters, make phone calls to them, and also invite them to demonstrations. (Scott, 1982, pg90).
An interest group considers itself influential if the congress kills or produces a policy that it agrees with. Influence from interest groups can come from a variety of paths when the congressional standpoint is taken. Information, action or threatened action from interest groups can cause congress members to alter the content or path of legislation pieces. This might come in the form o f a change of wording, a passage from a sub-committee, not passing from a standing committee.
Among another characteristic of law-making process in American Congress in peculiarity of relations between the President and Congress, that is executive and legislative branches of power. Unlike British Prime Minister American President has less influence on legislation in Congress but however exercises the right of legislative initiative. As Bond and Fleisher argue in respect relations between President and Parliament, “The basic parameters of presidential-congressional relations set by these institutional forces in Congress are relatively fixed. Although the president’s leadership skill and his popularity with the public may influence success at the margins, there is little the president can do to move members of Congress very far from their basic political predispositions” (Bond and Fleisher, p.222).
The reality of power is the other factor that presents an obstacle to reforms in parliament. The matter of the effects of reform on power relations, especially between Government and Parliament is quite apart from the question of its desirability in the abstract. The limitation imposed by the independent and powerful standing committees of Congress is something American presidents are familiar with. A prime minister, unlike the president who is less constrained, needs to retain legislature’s support when taking action. (Samuel, pg 380).
Political parties play a crucial role in the life of politics through setting agendas of policies, directing and organizing material and human resources, nominating candidates for offices that are public and monitoring the work of representatives that are elected. The political party that wins the most areas in a given election in two or multiparty democracies wins legislative control. On the other hand, in parliamentary systems, the governments’ executive branch is controlled by the party that wins majority.
In Europe, political parties are the primary institutions are mainly the representatives of democracy. The structure of electoral competition is defined by the parties. Candidates are not selected by individuals but by party and party representatives. A large proportion of British do not vote for individual candidates but directly for party lists. Once they are in government, parties exercise control over the process of policymaking. Party leaders and political parties articulate and identify many of the issues and concerns raised by the public. Parties also perform an education function by informing the public. (Salisbury, pg 71).
A political party may win more seats than each of the other parties in a multiparty political system. It is not possible to win more than all other parties combined. Coalitions may be formed by parties in this case to achieve a majority. In control of the legislature, the majority party or coalition has more votes compared to other parties. At least in theory, it can easily pass legislation. Multiparty systems are accused of being unstable politically. Political parties cannot work together and form stable coalitions because of too many competing interests. They also cannot prevent deadlock between the executive and the legislature. (Greenwood, pg 383).
Most MPs in the House of Commons belong to a particular political party for example the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, or the New Democratic Party. The character and organization of the House of Representatives have evolved under the influence of political parties. This provides a means of mobilizing the necessary majorities and controlling proceedings. (Eugene B., Robert A pg 290).
Parliament is at the center of the political system in the United Kingdom. It is the supreme legislative body meaning that the parliament is sovereign.
The government is answerable to it as it is drawn from it. Parliament is bicameral, consisting of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Congress members in the United States can alter the course or content of draft legislation based on active threats and information action from interest groups. The interest groups could do this by making persuasive remarks to members who have a profound effect on a questionable bill, a passage coming from a subcommittee and wording. (Greenwood, pg 398).
The political parties in have a structure that is mainly decentralized and also has minimal internal discipline. The federal and presidential form of government could be the reason behind this state of affairs. These parties when in power do not have the likelihood to broad and coherent legislative packages than parties that are centralized in parliamentary systems. In systems that are competitive such as Britain parties are usually highly organized, disciplined, and have large membership. This is mainly because the government is parliamentary and has a unitary structure. This makes it possible for the party in power to translate what visions it puts forward during election campaigns into policies of the public.
Every issue presented requires a vote from members of Parliament. In the U.S., representatives and senators who wish to seek re-election from local constituencies that vary widely do not experience such pressure. In Britain, scoundrel partisans can have their quest for renomination denied. The opposition has a crucial role in the floor debates that are a characteristic of such debates. The opposition is expected to illuminate and make clear its positions clearly. It should also be prepared to present a front that is united when the public falls out of favor with the majority. Political parties play a role that is quite different in the U.S. Congress.
As much as it is true that almost all Congress members are usually supportive of major parties and that affiliation with parties does not affect the members’ decision concerning legislative voting, parties found in the United States cannot show the level of unity shown by the parliamentary parties in Britain. The legislative parties in the U.S are decentralized, mostly non-hierarchical, have coalitions that are broad, and are very flexible when it comes to a range of issues. As a result there may be “no consistency in party positions on different areas of policies”. (Greenwood, pg 387).
The United States legislative system is designed to produce legislation showing concession among varied interests and one that satisfies all interests. Bipartisan support of legislation becomes necessary for the passing of a bill when one party dominates the legislature and the executive. Since 1987, this has been the case. A president in the United States of America has the power to veto legislation. He can be only be overtaken by two-thirds majority in each sitting of Congress. (Ernst, pg 351).
The power of members of parliament in America is greater than of those in Britain. However, the opposition party members in the United States usually get frustrated because of their failure to control the process of legislation. They can combine with members who are many to ensure their interests are served by the legislation passed through voting. They can also use the advantage of their numbers to exhibit leverage to a certain degree in bargaining for legislation. They can defend the interests of their constituents with their individual vote if all fails as a defense which is possible.
The committee system both in British Parliament and American Congress are highly developed, however this does not essentially affect the pace of legislative turnover in both legislative bodies. As both parliaments represent legislative bodies of extremely developed countries their committee system covers various spheres of political, humanitarian and economic interests. Among the committees that exist in British House of Commons one should mention the following: Administration Committee, Business and Enterprise Committee, Children, Schools and Family Committee, Arms export committee, Culture, Media and Sports committee etc.
American Senate is notable for its Committee on Ethics which pays much attention to the issues of bioethics, moral behavior etc (Cohen, 1990).
Legislatures use the deliberation process to make laws and adopt policies. The decisions are usually generated from set of principles that are broad in the constitutions that are unwritten and written. It is not mandatory for these decisions to come from the laws’ rule or legal precedents that are specific. This is what differentiates legislatures and the courts.
What matters, in the long run, is not the strength of the legislature of any government; it is whether the kind of legislature chosen serves the needs of the citizens of a country. This as has been seen in many states and countries can be a daunting task.
Conclusions
To sum it up, our analysis shows that law-making process and legislative structure in the USA and Great Britain differ essentially which results from substantive differences in their political systems. We came to conclusion that constitutional monarchy in UK is more convenient for quick pass of legislation than the Presidential Republic in the United States. There is no denying the importance of the fact that parliament majority in the UK is the source of forming executive branch of power and when it is formed than parliament majority can easily implement legislative initiatives of Prime Minister and his cabinet. In the United States, however President does have the right to legislative initiative he is dependent on the kind of majority which is formed in Congress.
For instance, if American President is the member of Republican Party and Congress majority is formed by Democrats, he is likely to have difficulties in passing his legislation through the Parliament due to the long process of coordination and discussions with rival parties.
Therefore, the difference in political systems and organization of ties between legislative and executive branches of power in the US and UK are among the basic factors affecting the speed of legislation process. Besides this, as it was noted above British Parliament allows less public discussions of legislation inside and outside the parliament and presupposes quick and effective creation of necessary acts and laws. This also enhances the speed of legislation passing and creates a tangible advantage vis-à-vis American Congress procedures.
References
Bond, Jon and Fleisher, Richard. The President in the Legislative Arena. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.
Cohen, Cynthia B. “Ethics Committees as Corporate and Public Policy Advocates.” The Hastings Center Report 20.5 (1990): 36-58.
Eugene B., Robert A. Going by the Book. The Problem of Regulatory Unreasonableness. Transaction Publishers, 2002, p. 267-330.
Freund E. Standards of American Legislation. University of Chicago Press. P. 340-363, 2006.
Furlong, Scott “Interest Group Influence on Regulatory Policy” Paper presented at the presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science.1992. p. 89-115. Web.
Geracimos, Ann. “Novel Views of Isabel Allende.” The Washington Times. 2002: 3.
Goldstein M. Interest groups, lobbying and Participation in America. Cambridge University Press. p.140-151, 1999.
Greenwood, John. Conflict of Laws in Great Britain. Cambridge University Press. Pp. 380-420, 2001.
Jenkins, David. “From Unwritten to Written: Transformation in the British Common-Law Constitution.” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 36.3 (2003): 863-879.
John R. B., Diane, P.B. Role of Political Parties in the Organization of Congress. Journal of Law Economics and Organization.. Oxford University Press, 2002.
Maslin-Wicks, Kimberly. “Two Types of Presidential Influence in Congress.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 28.1 (1998): 108-138.
Oslon, Mancur. The Logic of Collective Action. Harvard University Press. 1965. 230-248.
Salisbury, Robert H. Interest Representation. “The Dominance of Institutions.” American Political Science Review. 78: (1984) 64-76.
Samuel C. P. ‘Review Article: The British House of Commons as a Focus for Political Research’. British Journal of Political Science, Vol.3, No.3 (1973). Pp 363-381.
Smith, A. “Interest Group-Influence in the U.S Congress”. Legislative Studies Quarterly 20: (1995). 89-139.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.