The British system is also referred to as “responsible government”. This means that the government, represented by the Prime Minister and his cabinet of ministers is responsible and accountable to the parliament. This imposes the necessary checks on government power. If the majority of the parliament votes against the functioning of the government, the latter could be dismissed and fresh elections could be called on. On the other hand, the American system is designed in such a way that the head of state (the President) cannot be easily removed by the Congress. The Congress can of course impeach the President, but this process takes the air of a judicial one and a little drawn out (Almond, 1956).
The British system is also different in regard to the special powers assigned to the Governor-General, who can call for elections earlier than scheduled, when the circumstances so require. Further, there is a “maximum term” for which an election result is valid. Such a setup really does empower the general public as illustrated by the following scenario:
“If Government policy that has general community support is blocked by the opposition or minor parties, the Government can appeal to the electorate. In the American system the terms of office of the House of Representatives, Senate, and President are all ‘fixed’, so that an early election cannot be held. If a President dies or resigns, the Vice-President serves out the remaining part of his term. There are no circumstances in which the American President can dissolve Congress and call an early election.” (Almond, 1956)
Another aspect where the two electoral systems differ is in regard to the distribution of powers. In the American electoral system, the Executive division as well as the Legislative division is elections based, whereas the Judiciary is “appointed” by the Head of State. This arrangement can have significant ramifications in the direction that the judiciary takes and in setting precedents for future legal disputes. Usually, there is a tendency for the judicial appointments to reflect the political affiliation of the Executive branch. For example, in the case of the Administration of George W. Bush, the appointment of John Ashcroft as the Attorney General was quite expected, as both Bush and Ashcroft come from the same Republican Party fold (Anderson, 1997).
The British constitution is a product of centuries of gradual progress and evolution. Given that the United Kingdom was a functioning monarchy for a long time and a nominal one even to this day, the transition of power from that of the aristocracy to that of the common folk was a slow and gradual one. While there is no doubt that Britain is one of the leading advocate of democratic political systems during its stage of nascence, the American form of electoral democracy has its own unique qualities. The United States was unusual as a nation-state in that it does not represent any particular ethnic, religious or racial group. Hence, the adoption of electoral democracy by the founding fathers was quite natural. But on the other hand, what we seen in present day Britain is an “imposed democratic system”. The testament to this reality is the fact that class differences continue to exist in Britain even to this day, and while the political clout of the aristocracy has diminished significantly, it still remains an affluent and exclusivist class in the British society (Kalleberg, 1966).
In the electoral system adopted by the United States, the concept of “electoral colleges” comes into prominence. As per this system, the electorate is divided according to their state of residence and each state among the total of fifty states is a separate battleground for the presidential candidates. While this system has its merits and de-merits, it serves the American democracy well. The American population is not evenly distributed across its geography. Hence, the concept of electoral colleges ensures that even the sparsely populated states attract the attention of the presidential candidates, who would otherwise be overlooked as candidates vie for votes in densely populated regions. Given that the British geography and the distribution of its citizens is much more even, the popular mandate alone is sufficient for winning elections. Again, while the two election processes are quite different, they serve their respective democracies quite well (Hewitt, 197).
While democracy as a system of political governance has come to be accepted as the only just and stable form, each democratic country is facing a set of crisis with respect to its electoral systems. The same applies to the British and American systems as well. As a renowned political analysts points out,
“In the not-too-distant future these societies will need to deal with issues that may require extensive changes to life-style and social organization, issues such as global warming, terrorism, religious conflict, energy shortages, war. None of these “democratic” systems does well in focusing the attention of a large enough proportion of the population on a problem and giving people suggesting possible solutions an opportunity to mobilize enough public support to carry any solution out.” (Kalleberg, 1966)
The electoral system of the United States puts a limit on the number of terms a President can continue in Presidency, whereas the British electoral system does not impose similar restrictions on the Prime Minister-ship. In the case of the former, the rationale was that the limitation will give opportunities for other eligible candidates to represent the public in the highest office. But overall, in spite of such checks and balances, the American system seems to have under-achieved. For instance, the U.S. is the biggest contributor to the global warming phenomena. It is also the country with the widest gap between the affluent and the poor. It also leads the world in the nuclear arms race. All these results have come about overcoming public opinion against such developments, which does not speak much of the world’s leading democracy and its electoral system. A similar inference could be made of the British system as well, which many analysts believe to be the “junior partner” to the United States, in diplomatic efforts across the globe.
Works Cited:
GA Almond , Comparative Political Systems, – The Journal of Politics, 1956
C Hewitt , Democracy and Social Democracy on Equality in Industrial Societies: A Cross-National Comparison, American Sociological Review, 1977
CJ Anderson, CA Guillory , Political Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Cross-National Analysis of Consensus, The American Political Science Review, 1997
AL Kalleberg, The Logic of Comparison: A Methodological Note on the Comparative Study of Political Systems, World Politics, 1966