Separation of Powers in America

In the American form of government, the president is elected by the people to fulfill the role of the head of State, and the head of Government. Some European countries developed a parliamentary system with a prime minister to fulfill the role of the head of government while the monarch had the role of head of state, and kept that type of government even after monarchies died out, usually replacing the king/queen with an elected president (except for the United Kingdom which still has a queen).

In a parliamentary system, the head of government (the prime minister) is elected by the party that has the majority of control over the parliament (or by the parties that have formed the majority coalition), this ensures that the executive branch and the legislative branch are essentially one and the same. In the United States the head of government (the president) is basically elected by the citizens, not the party that has a majority in congress; and the legislative and executive branches are completely separated to create a series of check and balances to try and prevent tyranny from either side.

This separation of powers in the United States was created by the founders to prevent another monarch to rule over their country again. If the president had the complete support and control of the congress, then it would be easier for him/her to abuse their power and exercise whatever ideologies they want to impose on the country. The problem, however, is that it creates a lot of tension between the executive and legislative branches (especially if both branches are ruled by opposing political parties). This means that it’s often difficult for both the executive and legislative branches to reach an agreement on policies and laws for the country, and slows down the productivity of the government as a result of this.

People also often debate over the actual necessity of directly electing a president. In the United States it has been such an important part of the culture to do so, that it’s now considered one of the greatest privileges this country’s citizens enjoy, so that’s probably not going to change any time soon. But other western country’s (including Canada, Germany, Japan, and Sweden) have been successful in managing their respective countries with a parliamentary system. It can be argued that this type of government ensures that the government works more efficiently because there’s less conflict between the head of government and the legislators, and also ensures that the head of government will be qualified and have experience in government (because he/she would have had to be a legislator before being elected as prime minister).

Even though the parliamentary system does have checks and balances in place (the government can be dissolved by the rest of parliament) it allows large parties and coalitions to have a greater amount of control over state affairs. In the United States there are only two main parties, so if it were a parliamentary system the majority party in congress would always elect the head of state. This separation of powers is thus ensuring that neither the legislative branch or the executive branch abuse their powers and take control of the government. Even though it slows down the efficiency of the government, it ensures that each decision is carefully analyzed and reviewed by legislators, and the executive branch alike.

4 Responses to "Separation of Powers in America"

Alexandra Friedman says:

November 29, 2017 at 8:46 pm

I think you make some really good points about the role of the presidency and what power he should have. In particular, I liked how you explained this point through the specific example of drone strikes. This was a good way to illustrate the confusing role of presidential power. The president is the person in the country we choose who believe is most qualified to represent our interests. Because of this system, our country needs to trust him. So, I think you are right in saying that the president does technically have the right to make these decisions. In the case of drone strikes, we need to instead focus on their morality in a case by case basis and when they should be allowed instead of who should be allowed to make the decisions.

In my mind, the scariness of drone strikes is how detached they are. They give us the power to engage and kill through the click of the button. There is no question that this is easier and safer than armed combat. But, it is clear that it also takes away some of the responsibility and in turn results in us killing people who should not be killed. When a country feels less guilt and responsibility for their actions, it can be a dangerous thing. I think the US needs to refine its strategy and have more restrictions on what qualifies a drone strike. In order to do this, we do need to make sure there are more barriers between the presidency and the strikes. This does not mean we have to doubt his judgment, instead we need to understand how busy the president is. He has to make these decisions along with countless others each day. He simply does not have the time to truly think through each strike as much as he should, and this is where the real danger lies.
Alexandra Friedman says:

November 29, 2017 at 8:47 pm

(Sorry professor I copied and pasted the wrong comment)!!

I think you make a good point in showing the diversity between the political systems of
seemingly similar countries. Since the US and Europe are similar in the sense of both being liberal western democracies, we often assume this means they have the same or very similar political systems. Yet, they actually differ quite a bit. Personally, I think that Americans do benefit by being able to not only choose the party, but also the person. There is an enormous amount of variation between people even within the same party- just look at Ted Cruz vs. John Mccain, or Bill Clinton vs. Bernie Sanders. When we just elect a party, not a president, we do not get to vote for the person we think would be the best leader for us. Instead, you are forced to look at things more generally and let the party make the decision for you.

Proponents of the parliamentary system would obviously disagree. Parliamentary systems are particularly helpful for countries that have a more diverse populous. They allow for power to be more evenly spread, and reduce political polarization greatly. The greater number of parties means that more people have their views heard, which is of course the defining factor of any liberal democracy. Personally, I believe that the systems fit the countries that have them. America is a country that strongly values the people having the final word. On the other hand, many European countries do not have the same fear of not having enough say that we do. This stems from our respective foundings, which we have to remember differ greatly. I think that both systems have their pros and cons, and that they need to be looked at on a case by case basis in deciding when they do and do not work.
Camryn Travis says:

November 29, 2017 at 11:54 pm

I think it is extremely interesting that you bring up the importance of voting for a president in American culture. Although historically minorities have greatly fought to gain suffrage and presidential elections are seen as essential for American government and culture, the voter turnout for presidential elections is relatively low. I think American culture is often influenced by negative liberties instead of the actual actions associated with the liberty. I think it is also extremely important that you brought up the functionality of a presidency without a parliamentary system. Although a parliamentary system may allow for greater party unity and cooperation between the president and parliament, it has the potential to prevent big scale cross-party coordination that is associated the United States governmental system.
Marcin Jerzewski says:

November 30, 2017 at 12:17 pm

Political folklore constitutes an important part of the political culture of each and every polity. In the United States, folklore has grown up around the early presidents and figures from the American Revolution. Combined with the two-party system, and the difficulties of changing the presidential system enshrined in the Constitution, this state of the matter makes it very unlikely that the United States will ever become a parliamentary or even a semi-presidential republic any time soon. Nevertheless, I still believe we ought to ask ourselves whether the U.S. would be better off with a parliament? The U.S. can still take lessons from Europe. In an interview with the National Public Radio (https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/10/12/232270289/would-the-u-s-be-better-off-with-a-parliament), prominent political scientists have mentioned two most important lessons of this kind. Firstly, the United States should strengthen its control of laws regarding donations to political campaigns. Boston University’s Cathie Jo Martin said that, “I think the campaign finance issue is probably the single most important difference between America and the rest of the world.” Secondly, perhaps holding some of the meetings behind the closed door could help the country avoid gridlock. For example, Prof. Mansbridge of the Harvard Kennedy School said that in Europe, “When you’ve made a decision, like the Supreme Court, you explain it, but you don’t necessarily let the public see everything you do.”

Additionally, it occurs to me that in your blog post – and admittedly, in blog post written by other classmates who also discuss the implications of the American presidential system – you discuss the issue in terms of a dichotomy between a presidential and a parliamentary system. We need to bear in mind that there is actually a “third way” solution in place: semi-presidential system. Several European countries, including France, Lithuania, Poland, and Portugal, as well as Taiwan (a county with a higher Freedom in the World score than the U.S.!; 91 v. 89 in 2017) are examples of well-functioning democracies with a semi-presidential system.

In a semi-presidential system, a directly elected president governs alongside a prime minister and a cabinet, with the latter two being responsible to the legislature of the polity. Unlike in the parliamentary system, the president has considerably more functions than only ceremonial (for instance, the president can veto a bill passed by the two-chamber legislature). Additionally, even though the president appoints cabinet-level officials, they are responsible to the legislature (and not the president as in the presidential system). This may force the cabinet to resign through a motion of no confidence.

In Taiwan, the president (currently Ms. Tsai Ing-wen) is head of state and commander-in-chief of the armed forces, represents the nation in foreign relations, but most importantly, she is responsible for appointing heads of four branches of the government (there are five branches of government in the political system of Taiwan, as delineated by Sun Yat-sen: Executive Yuan, Legislative Yuan [elected in separate direct elections], Judicial Yuan, Control Yuan, and the Examination Yuan), including the prime minister, who leads the Executive Yuan (Cabinet) and must report regularly to the Legislative Yuan (Legislature) (see: http://www.taiwan.gov.tw/content_4.php). Consequently, I think we should also expand our discussion to consider (even if it is only a hypothetical, counterfactual example) consequences of introducing a semi-presidential system in the United States, rather than alleging some sort of cross-Atlantic presidential v. parliamentary republic dichotomy.

Comments are closed.