I was just wondering.

RE: I was just wondering.

Teorically it has lot of power, but I suppose the lobbies impose in a way many decissions. On the other way, there´s something which happens in the US more than in other parts of the world. The decissions lie, in an indirect way, on the people. American presidents usually do what polls what them to do.

RE: I was just wondering.

The problem i have with the parliament system is the constant change of governments in times of need but disagreement. Canada and Israel’s problems are good example. When something goes wrong, the prime minister just resigns and apologize and leave. I don’t like that way since the job simply isn’t being done…it’s not about you, but about getting the job done. If a president gets in trouble, well tough, he/she got to tough it out and continue on. Check and balances is very powerful and also provides many directions that ordinary citizens can look up to if one or two branches fail them.

RE: I was just wondering.

Brad,

In Belgium, the gov’t consists of the executive branch only. I think the 3 powers should be seperated at all costs, and above them, one head of state (an elected president). I think France is the ideal democracy, because there’s one president and PM, which have their own tasks, but depending on the political situation, the President will have more or less power than the PM. Now, Chirac will be the real leader of France (and not Raffarin), whereas Juspin used to be the leader.

RE: I was just wondering.

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 23-08-02 AT 08:28 PM (GMT)]The US system is further complicated by the fact that each state replicates the machinery of government after a local fashion.

I do also agree that the President has too much power. The idea that one man has his hand on the button is very disturbing. No individual in the world should have such power. I know that commanders of nuclear submarines do, but there are very well established “checks and balances” there. In the UK, the PM cannot order a nuclear deployment. He needs the consent of his cabinet, at least the “war cabinet”. I might also add that in the UK, all cabinet ministers are elected, and not simply appointed as in the US.

Anoter way of looking at is to consider Corporate America. In the US, it is routine for the CEO of a company to also be the Chairman or President. This is illegal in the UK, at least for listed companies. The two roles cannot be combined, as there needs to be a body of non-executive directors overseeing the Board who have the power to put a stop to anything nefarious. The Chairman is simply the head of the non-executives. Post-Enron, US corporate governance standards have been severely criticised over here. It used to be the same in the UK, but we changed after corporate disasters like Guinness/Distillers and Polly Peck.

RE: I was just wondering.

Geforce- In the US, the government is made up of three branches, the executive(basically one person- the president) , legisaltive (congress and senate), judicial (the 12 supreme court justices). These three branches have checks and balances to make sure neither of the three has too much power or control over the country. I really dont understand why many european countrys have so many people who make up their executive branch rather than one person as that could weaken that branch against other bodys of govt. For example I think somebody like Mitterand stayed in power so long because he was able to appoint primeministers to take all the heat off of him while he pretended to be some kind of overall mediator. You should read a book John F Kennedy wrote called “Profiles in courage” which illustrates how these checks and balances work in the US.

RE: I was just wondering.

The US is ruled by 545 petty tyrants.

1 president
9 Supreme Court Justices
100 Senators
435 Representatives

Fortunately, they are generally so busy back-stabbing each other that they are unable to pass more oppressive laws.