Should The United States Adopt A Parliamentary Government?
The United States of America has had a presidential system of government since the constitution was ratified in the late eighteenth century. Is the style of government better or worse than that of the British style of parliamentary?
Some say that the U.S. should adopt a government that resembles that of Britain’s because it would make government more accountable and democratic, more efficient, and would restore the traditions held by the executive to the legislature. In Herbert M Levine’s “The Case for A Parliamentary System” he states that the U.S. does not hold anybody accountable because of the separations power and authority. It is hard to blame somebody when they do not have full control of the situation. However in the British Parliament the majority party is held accountable. He goes on to state that the U.S. government is inefficient because it is out dated and can not efficiently meet the needs of a post-industrial nation and that inexperienced individuals can become president. Levine goes on to show that the four year term of a president is almost set in stone and how parliament could change leaders without a general election.
On the other hand in Herbert M. Levine’s “The Case against a Parliamentary System” he shows how the U.S. government is better suited for America than a parliamentary system. Government has a system of checks and balances that in turn does not only hold one government official responsible but many, so in turn there is actually more accountability than that of the parliamentary. Also Levine states that the current government of the U.S is far more efficient in that the constitution is not set in stone and can be amended to fit the current needs of its people and change any policy foreign or at home. Lastly he shows that the legislative power has declined compared to the executive powers but has grown in it’s over all power. Congress used to meet only for but a few...