Across the Pond: Why European Leaders Have Less Power

As we could read in the chapter for this week and as can be widely observed, the powers of the president of the United States are extensive. As the chapter noted, the American president combines the duties of both a chief of state and a chief executive, meaning they are both the ceremonial and the practical leader of the state and the government. This allows the president to represent the country ceremoniously, for example on foreign state visits, but also to craft actual policy.

This may not seem strange, but this combination of powers is hardly ever seen in a democracy. A majority of democracies have a prime minister or equivalent, who leads the government and oversees the day to day running of the country, and in addition a president or a monarch who is the figurehead of the state and aids in conducting state visits and foreign policy. In some states these figures are more or equally as visible than the actual chief executive, like in Great Britain, but in most states they do not step into the public eye until necessary.

The distinction between having a head of state and a chief executive embodied in one person and having the duties split between two people is the result of the history of the respective states. The United States founding as independent from Great Britain and its emphasis on power in the states itself and a small government, as we learned in earlier chapters, caused there to be a push for the powers of the leader to be as small as possible. If a state pushes for a government that is as small as possible, there is no logic in there being two heads of state to share the responsibilities.

Something that is also surprising about these states where the duties of the head of state are split is that there is much less power vested in those that carry out these duties, even when taken together. The power of the European heads of states is more concentrated in parliament and in the individual ministries or departments, meaning there is far less power vested in one person. This can also, of course, be explained by going through the causes for the large amount of power vested in the president – such as the role of the United States in the world or the growing size of the government – but this does not seem to explain the full difference between the states.

So, my question to you is, why do you think the United States president has so much more power than its counterparts in Europe and other democracies, and how did this come about over the years?

7 Responses to "Across the Pond: Why European Leaders Have Less Power"

Katherine Fell says:

November 27, 2017 at 2:46 pm

The US Constitution lays out the foundations for the American government, and the founders kept in mind the importance of not placing too much power in a single ruler, as they had just escaped the “tyranny” of the British monarchy. Therefore, the first Article of the Constitution is about Congress, which infers that the legislative branch would have the most power in US government. The president was also given power as a means to centralize the federal government and operate as a head of state, but the executive branch did being not carry the influence that it does today until the twentieth century and the Second World War. As the US entered World War II, the economy was in its greatest depression in the nation’s history, and the country was in desperate need of leadership with a clear goal and message. President Roosevelt and the New Deal heavily empowered the executive branch, giving the president unprecedented power in order to provide economic relief to the people and lead the country through a violent global conflict. The New Deal created a myriad of federal programs including Social Security, which is one of the most expensive government programs today. The circumstances of World War II and the Great Depression forced FDR to truly take advantage of the presidency and expand his powers for the good of the American people. In fact, he was the only president to be elected for a third term before the passing of the 22nd Amendment which limited the presidency to two terms. After FDR’s presidency, the president’s agenda became just as important as the Congressional agenda, changing the way that the federal government operated for decades to come.
Helen Spiller says:

November 27, 2017 at 7:51 pm

The United States is an extremely vast and diverse place with so many different opinions and views for which are represented and expressed in government. The United States as opposed to smaller nations in Europe needed a sole strong leader to be the voice of the nation. Many events that took place in the United States caused this growth of the executive and the creation of the strong presidential force that we have today. Events like the Great Depression, the World Wars, the recession, the cold war, 9/11, etc. have created the need for a strong powerful executive. Creations such as the New Deal, The Patriot Act, and much more have strengthened our government in ways that many Americans pushed for and liked. These crises and their reactions have created the strong executive we have today.
While these events certainly took effect across the pond, many countries in Europe are smaller with a more cohesive legislative branch to take some of the burden off of the executive branch. The entire country of France is smaller than the state of Texas which simply makes leading the people an easier task. Overall, the major events in America calling for the need of someone to take control and be a strong voice for such a large place has created this ultimately extremely strong executive branch as opposed to those across the pond.

https://www.wanderingfrance.com/blog/articles/182/how-big-is-france
Marcin Jerzewski says:

November 28, 2017 at 10:18 am

I strongly disagree with your claim that, “this combination of powers is hardly ever seen in a democracy.” Presidential system is actually the most widespread democratic and republican system of government in the Western hemisphere. And presidential republics in the region are some of the strongest democracies in the world. According to the 2017 Freedom in the World report, Costa Rica, Chile and Uruguay have achieved an aggregate score of 91, 94 and 98, respectively; such scores are comparable to those of Western European parliamentary republics or parliamentary constitutional monarchies, traditionally regarded as bastions of democracy (compare Germany and Belgium at 95). We ought to bear in mind that there are more cases in global politics than merely the United States and Europe. But even in Europe there is a notable exception to the point you are making even in the context. Cyprus is continent’s only presidential republic.

There are many advantages to the presidential system in a democracy. One of them is the strengthening of the system of checks and balances. A presidential system sets up the presidency and the legislature as two separate and parallel structures. This allows each structure to monitor and check the other, preventing abuses of power. It is true that this arrangement can also create political gridlock, whenever the president and the legislative majority are from different parties. But all in all, parliamentary system is not necessarily superior to the presidential system in a democracy.

Freedom in the World 2017: https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2017
Declan Horrigan says:

November 28, 2017 at 5:11 pm

I think you make a lot of really good points in your post and your question is very interesting. I believe that the reason the president has so much more power than its European counterparts is because of the extensive checks and balances system that the Framers established when drafting the Constitution. The largest principle that the Framer’s had in the back of their minds when writing the Constitution was the situation where they had just been entirely controlled by Great Britain and wanted to move almost as far away from this system, the system of a monarch, as possible. So the question why would they give the President so much power? seems to be a logical inquiry. The answer is that they didn’t, or at least didn’t intend to. A large portion of the citizens in the United States are aware of the checks and balances system that our government is based on and this is designed in order to make sure that the executive, or any other branch does not abuse the power that is given to them. That being said, all of the powers that you listed as given to the president are true, however they do not necessarily encompass as much power and authority as they might seem because of all the checks and balances that are present, or at least intended to be present by the Framers.
Jackson Puckey says:

November 28, 2017 at 8:24 pm

What is even stranger about the American-style of executive is this: it never works. Well, in the case of America it certainly works, but it is generally a recipe for authoritarianism in just about every other country where it is attempted. The idea of an executive who has unilateral control over foreign relations, serious control over military affairs, and who acts as the primary driver and sole approver of legislation has only ever worked in America. The division of the Head of State and Head of Government is visible in almost every other successful country in the world. Whether that is between the monarch and the prime minister (as in the UK, the Netherlands, Sweden, and others) or between President and Prime Minister (as in France, Italy, Germany, and others), the responsibilities of the executive are clearly divided to prevent authoritarianism. To put this into perspective, the vast majority of countries where these two positions are consolidated are authoritarian regimes (like Cuba, China, and North Korea), absolute monarchies (Oman, Brunei, and Saudi Arabia), or countries where the U.S. holds a great deal of influence (Latin America, Liberia, and the Philippines). In fact, the U.S. does not even suggest that other countries adopt our system when they design new governments. Following our destruction of Saddam’s Iraq and the Taliban’s Afghanistan, we suggested the creation of a Parliamentary system with a president as head of state, rather than our own model.
Which brings about the question of why the U.S. constructed and maintains a system which can so clearly be exploited. In terms of its creation, the explanation is complicated. Firstly, the founders’ clear intentions of checks and balances and the separation of powers generally places the president in an extremely powerless position. The contemporary powers of the president, as we discussed in class, are a recent development following the massive expansion in scope of the U.S. government. In this way, the small scope of 18th century government certainly contributed to the feeling that the job of the executive could be done by one man. Its also true that many of these dualistic systems emerged from a monarchical history, where the balance of executive power was important. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the Thirteen Colonies took serious umbrage with the British Parliament. King George III was a deeply powerless ruler who was far less involved in government than his crowned contemporaries. Thus, much of the slights against colonial America (the Stamp Act, virtual representation, and the blockade of Boston being among the most prominent) were directed from a parliament where they held no representation. Because of this, and the monolothic style of British government coming almost exclusively from Parliament, the idea of separation of powers was critically important. Similarly, they wanted to ensure that the Executive branch was not led by members of the legislature to ensure separation.
Yanbin Zhang says:

November 29, 2017 at 9:35 pm

It’s really a critical perspective to compare the president in the U.S and the counterparts in European countries. The biggest difference, as you stated in the blog, is that the president in U.S has more exact power to initiate new policy, appoint members of his cabinet and nominate new chief justice if anyone died or retired, yet the prime ministers in parliamentary countries are more constrained by the parliament. Such extensive power of the president of U.S might be caused for two main reasons.

The first reason is root difference between the regimes. Although the U.S and European countries are all known as democracies and so called “ the West”, they actually have really different framework of their governments. Even if American people cannot vote for president directly, but through their representatives —- the electoral college, but they still pose great influence to choose the particular person to be their president. However, european people could only vote for their representative in parliament and the leader of winning party would be the prime minister. In other words, the prime minister is also a member of the parliament and his members of cabinet is corresponding to the proportion of each party’s seats in parliament. The power of prime minister is often constrained by the divided parliament. On the contrary, one of the very original goal of the president, the chief executive, designed by those framers, is to play as an comparatively independent branch prevent congress having too much power. Such original duty empowered the president to be the person powerful enough to keep check and balance with the whole congress. It’s hard to conclude which one is better cause such two regimes was designed from different perspective at the very beginning.

The second reason of the huge power president has is the long time history of extension of presidential power. It is always controversial to draw the fault line of presidential power since it’s sort of vague described in the constitution. Especially the recent decades, president more often avoid the potential conflict with congress on his bills by using the executive orders. The ability to make such orders is also based on express or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power. It has gradually become one tool of president to exercise his power. The power of president in diplomatic area has especially been strengthened throughout the history. In the case United States v. Curtiss Wright Corp, supreme court explicitly stated that president shall have necessary law-making authority in foreign affairs. It was a milestone in the history of extension of presidential power in foreign affairs. So it is actually a result of long time evolution and supervision loopholes that president in the U.S now have much more powers than his counterparts in the Europe.
Reid Chenault says:

November 29, 2017 at 10:07 pm

I think the difference between these two countries, the United States and Europe, has a lot to do with the age difference and type of original government. Europe was the much more developed country in the deep past, allowing for the societies and governments to adapt through the years. Their government styles allowed them to have a strong trust when giving these individual departments power. Because the European countries were around for many years before the United States they are able to entrust multiple divisions. The United States is known for being the “new guys on the block,” so they wanted to create a different government that was for the people. I think the President has more power because we are not quite as established, in age, as some European governments.

Comments are closed.