Question about parlimentary systems of government

[apsuman]

I have some questions about parlimentary systems of government. I guess my questions apply mainly to the United Kingdom, but really any parlimentary government.

First, is parlimentary the correct adjective? I would guess that the corresponding adjective for the US government would be federalist.

Second, I know that the ruling party/coalition can call new elections when they want (within the bounds of the law) but as I understand it, sometimes a new election can be forced. For example, if the ruling party loses a vote does that immediatley start the process for new elections?

Third, how are laws passed? Is it simply a majority of the parliment, is there no check and balance of a chief executive?

Fourth, the US system was designed to be slow to make new law. It seems like parlimentary systems can pass new laws very very quickly. Is this true or am I imagining it?

Fifth and finally, In the US the president selects (and the senate approves) his selections for his cabinet secretaries and undersecretaries. It seems to me (as a very passing observer) that in parlimentary systems the next biggest job under the Prime Minister is often the Foreign Secretary and that job goes to either the second person on the ruling party's ticket or the number one person from the next biggest party contributing to the ruling coalition. Is this right? And does that create problems? I am thinking of a great person to be the Finance Minister ends up being the Foreign Secretary or somesuch.

Or do I just have it all messed up?

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. It varies a bit, but with answers mainly applying to the UK

Parliamentary is the correct adjective - but I'd said the US adjective is 'presidential' - ie a president is elected, and then they appoint the cabinet etc. 'Federal' is to do with subsidiary divisions (with the -ist suffix it's a belief in how much power the central government gets, isn't it?) - eg Canada is both parliamentary and federal.

It has to be a specific 'vote of confidence' that the ruling party loses. This means the parliament no longer supports the prime minister or equivalent; the head of state must either appoint a new one (which they'll only do if they can be confident the new one won't lose another vote of confidence at once), or call an election.

Most parliaments in large countries are bicameral, with one house where the main power resides (eg House of Commons in the UK) and another that acts as a check. In the UK, the House of Lords is now mainly (90%?) appointed for life, and 10% hereditary (the hereditary lords are on the way out; some people want some elected lords to replace them, Blair wants to appoint all of them via a commission that he chooses). The Lords can delay legislation, but the Commons can force it through after, I think, 3 years (just a simple majority needed for this). In theory a monarch or ceremonial president canalso veto a law; in practice this doesn't happen (eg when a pro-abortion law went through Belgium a few years ago, the Catholic king abdicated for the afternoon so he didn't have to sign it, but it passed in his absence).

Speed of laws? As I said, the Lords can delay laws by 3 years, but it rarely goes that far. In the UK, MPs vote with their party more than the USA reps, so a government with an absolute majority does expect to get most of its legislation through in a year (amendments might hold it up a bit; we don't go in for the omnibus bills that Congress seems to love - they normally do what they say in their title).

Foreign Secretary isn't necessarily the number 2 slot - in the UK, it's probably finance minister, especially at the moment, in terms of the power they wield. In the UK, there isn't necessarily an obvious pecking order in a party, and it's tended to be people appointed to jobs more suited for them. This often means there's a progression from Defence Secretary to Foreign Secretary, and from the junior finance minister to the senior one, and so on. There's also a post of Deputy Prime Minister, which isn't always filled - the cabinet system has some flexibility - which sometimes gets real responsibility, and sometimes is more a 'lame duck' position. We haven't had a true coalition since before WW2, but I believe that the posts filled by junior parties are negotiated each time a coalition is formed.

[Spazito]

2. Wow, great questions! I can try and answer from a Canadian...

Parliamentary System point of view.

"First, is parlimentary the correct adjective? I would guess that the corresponding adjective for the US government would be federalist."

Yes, parliamentary is correct.

"Second, I know that the ruling party/coalition can call new elections when they want (within the bounds of the law) but as I understand it, sometimes a new election can be forced. For example, if the ruling party loses a vote does that immediatley start the process for new elections?"

Elections must be called every 5 years but the ruling party may call one earlier than that, often an election is called in the 4th year of the government.

A vote of non-confidence would cause the government to fall and an election would be called if the vote is on the Throne Speech or on the Budget, providing the government holds a majority of seats.

"Third, how are laws passed? Is it simply a majority of the parliment, is there no check and balance of a chief executive?"

Votes are on a majority basis. The Prime Minister must answer questions directly from the Opposition during Question Period which is an everyday occurrence when Parliament is in session. The leader of the winning party becomes the Prime Minister, there is no separate election for the Prime Minister unlike in the US.


"Fourth, the US system was designed to be slow to make new law. It seems like parliamentary systems can pass new laws very very quickly. Is this true or am I imagining it?"

Bills pass through committees prior to coming before the House for a vote not unlike the US and it can take a long period of time, depending on the bill. It then has to go up to our Senate, which is appointed not elected, and then it comes back to the House for a final vote.

"Fifth and finally, In the US the president selects (and the senate approves) his selections for his cabinet secretaries and undersecretaries. It seems to me (as a very passing observer) that in parlimentary systems the next biggest job under the Prime Minister is often the Foreign Secretary and that job goes to either the second person on the ruling party's ticket or the number one person from the next biggest party contributing to the ruling coalition. Is this right? And does that create problems? I am thinking of a great person to be the Finance Minister ends up being the Foreign Secretary or somesuch."

The Prime Minister appoints all his cabinet.

I hope this answers your questions at least in some part.

[Kellanved]

3. well, the German System

First, is parliamentary the correct adjective? I would guess that the corresponding adjective for the US government would be federalist.

Can't comment on the correctness of the adjective, but "parliamentary" and "federalist" do not exclude each other. There are lots of examples for both being practiced at the same time.


Second, I know that the ruling party/coalition can call new elections when they want (within the bounds of the law) but as I understand it, sometimes a new election can be forced. For example, if the ruling party loses a vote does that immediately start the process for new elections?

Yes, if the Chancellor looses a no-confidence vote, then the President is allowed to call elections.


Third, how are laws passed? Is it simply a majority of the Parliament, is there no check and balance of a chief executive?

Quite difficult to answer, as Germany is both Federal and Parliamentary. Parliament has the a lower house (Bundestag) and the upper house/house of states (Bundesrat). The basic makeup is a relict from Imperial times (much like the British Parliament); only the lower house has a direct democratic legitimation.


Basically the German way would be:

-Either introduction into the lower house of Parliament by the Government or a parliamentary party, or into the upper house by a state.

-Both Houses and the Government declare their positions regarding the law

-Vote in the lower house

--Detour: if the bill infringes in the rights of the states, the upper house has to pass it as well; traditionally the majority in the upper house is opposite to the one in the lower house.

--If the bill fails in the upper house a very complicated process of negotiation is started; if no common ground is found the law fails.

-If the bill is approved by all entitled houses, it is given to the President

-The President has to check the bill; after his approval the bill will be published as a law.



Fourth, the US system was designed to be slow to make new law. It seems like parliamentary systems can pass new laws very very quickly. Is this true or am I imagining it?
No, the perception here is actually reversed: the US system is seen as faster.

Fifth and finally, In the US the president selects (and the senate approves) his selections for his cabinet secretaries and undersecretaries. It seems to me (as a very passing observer) that in parliamentary systems the next biggest job under the Prime Minister is often the Foreign Secretary and that job goes to either the second person on the ruling party's ticket or the number one person from the next biggest party contributing to the ruling coalition. Is this right? And does that create problems? I am thinking of a great person to be the Finance Minister ends up being the Foreign Secretary or somesuch.

Yes, usually either the Foreign Minister or the Minister for Economics holds the position of Vice Chancellor as well. Generally "Foreign" is considered very important, especially as it used to bring quite a lot domestic power via the EU.
There are important differences among the Parliamentary systems: for example the Dutch PM is first among equals i.e. he can't order his ministers around.

[iangb]

4. Here in Australia.....

...we have a Parliamentary system based on the British model.

1. 'Parliamentary' is the correct term as it was adopted during Federation in 1901.

2.National Parliaments are elected for a maximum of 3 years...though the Government may call an election at any time. Senators are elected for a six year term with half of the members facing a poll at each national election.

3. Laws (other than Constitutional changes which require a national referendum) are passed in three stages:
a) A majority in the Lower House.
b) A majority in the Upper House (Senate) in which the Government rarely, if ever has a majority (due to a different voting system which favours minor parties in that House). The Senate reviews Bills in Committees which can sit for Months reviewing contentious Bills.
c) Royal Assent.....when a Bill is signed by the Govenor General (who's appointed by a joint session vote).

That process allows popular/emergency measures to be passed fairly quickly......recent anti-terrorism laws were passed within three
weeks of being presented.

Here (and in the UK) the second most senior post to the PM is the Treasurer (Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK). That post is usually filled from within the ruling party (With a coalition Government the Deputy PM is from the junior coalition party. At present he's the Transport Minister).