The British and American Political Systems_edition1.5

8/13/2019 The British and American Political Systems_edition1.5

1/26

ELTE BTK ANGLISZTIKA

British and American

Political SystemsLecture sketch for the exam

1.5th

edition (more or less revised edition)

This sketch tries to cover the content of the whole lecture series presented by Dr. Mikls Lojk,

senior lecturer, DES, ELTE BTK. It contains my own drafts besides contents from the internet and 1 or2 books. Please pay attention to the fact that the content (and the grammar :D) of this book can be

questioned.


2/26

The United Kingdom

Introductory

I. The branches of power: (by Montesquieu)

There are 3 branches of power: Executive (Vgrehajt), Judiciary (Brskod) and Legislature(Trvnyhoz).According to HIM, the branches of power are separated because otherwise they would

influence each other. In the system of Anglo-Saxon governing, its role is debatable since

England did not accept this kind of governing structure whereas the USA uses it.

USA type GB type

The constitution of the US is artificial, that is, strict and almost impossible to be changed,

while GB has NO LITERAL CONSTITUTION, the system of law in Britain consists of different

kinds of "lawcollections". (Constitution in its original context didn't include the book of law,

"going for a walk").

II. The British system of law: The law in England was rather formed "by accidents in history"

than by men.

The most important thing about British Law is the fact that they DON'T HAVE AN TANGIBLECONSTITUTION, they have an UNCODIFIED system, which includes debates, works of authors

on law and even TV programs, too. The GB System of Law consists of 7 categories in which

the elements of law are presented. The British CONSTITUTIONhas 3 overwhelmingly-true

features: it is indistinct, indeterminate, and unentrentched (easy to change, flexible).

1. Statute laws: (Alalptrvnyek)These kinds of laws are usually passed by the parliament that holds debates on an

issue (as opposed to military regimes, which might impose a DECREE (rendelet), a non-

parliamentary statute). In GB, no law is valid until the monarch itself signed it ("the

king/queen wants it").

An example of this section is the Bill of Rights(Jognyilatkozat) in 1689.

E J

L

E J

L


3/26

a) as statutes are discussed by the parliament, some words should be devoted to

the institute of politics in Britain, but just in general.

The British parliament has 2 houses, the House of Lords andthe House of

Commons(that is why it is called the "Houses of Parliament"). In the Kingdom,

the power is wielded in a much different way Europeans has got accustomed

to. The system itself is lying on 2 pillars, both with a different role.

dignified

(tisztelt)

efficient

(hasznos)

monarchy

PARLIAMENT cabinet

Prime minister

Respect is

important

instead of

efficiency

Deals with

"useful" and

effective acts

and happenings

There is an "only dignified" branch of power (the queen) which has little to do

with real laws and politics (especially, as she must not deal with it officially),

and there is a side, which deals with problems of the country, politics, laws etc.

BUT! What gives the country a kind of uniqueness is the phenomenon that real

power-wielders have to co-operate with the monarch in order to make their

legislative etc. powers valid, that is, to be accepted by people.

There are some other examples for statutes: Act(s) of settlements(unification

of Scotland and England in 1707), then the Parliament Act(1832, 1867, 1884

and 1911 about the right to vote and being voted), Alien Act(1905, about

foreigner-policy, where bona fide, that is, good faith was the Latin term used

for those foreign people, who were regarded to be "confidential" enough to

live in Britain.

2. Common law: (Magn v. polgri jog)This category includes everyday practices, customs etc., so it is NOT A WRITTEN-

DOWN LAW, but it is accepted as to be such a one. (GB vs. EU) Because of this, the

British system of law is extremely flexible, but it was more than this, as until 3 years

ago, it incorporated spoken or customary law too, where spoken agreement were

taken for granted.

3. Non-statutory Written Documents:

These are those written-down laws which do not belong to the 1st part, but they areimportant in another way. They include different kinds of bindings and restrictions

because (as opposed to the Hungarian-Latin law) EVERYTHING IS PERMITTED EXCEPT

THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE REGARDED AS ILLEGAL BY WRITING. A typical example of

this is the Magna Charta Libertatum.

4. Judgements in courts-Case law (Brsgi Gyakorlat)-Obiter Dicta:Obiter dictum (plural obiter dicta, often referred to simply as dicta or obiter) is Latin

for a statement "said in passing". An obiter dictum is a remark or observation made by

a judge that, although included in the body of the court's opinion, does not form a

necessary part of the court's decision. Decisions and acts are based on it, but they are

not necessarily followed word by word. Such as Habeas Corpus (in eng: have the


4/26

body) in the case of murders. In court cases, ALWAYS THE PROOF IS IMPORTANT AND

WHEATHER IT WAS LEGALLY GATHERED, NOT THE MERE KNOWLEDGE OF THE GUILT.

a) the role of the judge: Judges have overwhelming power in the process of

jurisdiction (igazsgszolgltats) as they are "free to choose" any kind ofdecision, regardless of nearly anything. (it's of course an exaggeration to

express how much it is different from the system of Hungary and Roman law)THE FORMER DECISIONS OF JUDGES ARE ADDED TO THIS SECTION, AND USED

AS AN EXAMPLE IN OTHER COURT CASES THEREAFTER.

5. Conventions: (Hagyomnyon alapul trvnyek)Many British constitutional conventions are ancient in origin, though others (like the

Salisbury Convention) date from within living memory. Such conventions, which

include the duty of the Monarch to act on the advice of his or her ministers, are not

formally enforceable in a court of law; rather, they are primarily observed "because

of the political difficulties which may arise if they are not." 5 types of conventions can

be distinguished.

a) fundamental conventions: These conventions are of top importance, dealingwith not everyday-, but "high politics and -governing", e.g., the leader of the

winner party is entitled to form a parliament by the monarch ONLY. The

monarch has to give this right to the winner, although, in legal terms, nothing

prohibits her from giving it to someone else (as it is not recorded in writing

anywhere) BUT she is widely expected to do so.

Similar conventions: cabinet government, no official titleof prime minister (!),

supremacy (felsbbsg) of parliament, the parliament cannot "bind" itself forthe future (so it can't declare that in any kind of issue, the parliament has no

privilege to think a decision over in the future and change it), official

"opposition" of the parliament (what is called the "shadow parliament")b) meso-conventions: The laws included here are only "partly" important ones,

as they do not usually deal with the government as a working institution, more

precisely, these makes it "official", or accepted by the people.

These are the following e.g.,: the opening ceremony of the parliament is "ran"

by the monarch, the monarch must not form a political opinion(even not in

unofficial matters), cabinet solidarity(which means, that none of the party

members should contradict or question the party opinion), subjudice(that is,

nobody is allowed to talk about inside-the-party opinions), right to silence in

courtswhen asked (since Prime Minister Tony Blair, it is regarded as the sign of

guilt)c)semi-conventions: In these conventions, those "rules" are included, which are

to preserve different types of "desirable" behaviours, in order to maintain the

system as a whole, just like what oil does with the engine.

Several conventions here are among the ones, which deals with the

monarch/royal family, such as, the monarch has to sign a new law, although,

s/he is not obliged to do so by a rule or a law (otherwise, a commission would

be entitled to sign it IN THE NAME OF THE QUEEN/KING). Another example of

them is the fact that in England, there is no referendum(npszavazs),because it can be manipulated easily (2 important ones were held however: EU-

membersip, which was accepted, and the changing of the political system,which was turned down). In addition, the traditionally "noisy" British


5/26

parliament is regulated somehow by these conventions, like during resignation

speeches, nobody SHOULD make attempts to interrupt, but it is not as strong as

the previous ones.

A semi-convention was the existence of the title"lord" too, more exactly,

nobody, who had this title, was allowed to BE ELECTED and since such titles

were obligatory inherited, many noble families were not allowed to take a partin politics. Then, when the 1923 election-winner Lord Stanley Baldwin (of the

conservative party) asked the monarch to elect one of his party member

(without the title lord), His Highness allowed the members of the House of

Lords to get rid of their titles and take part in politics afterwards. But having

such a title continually meant no participation in elections

d) infra-conventions: These kind of conventions support controversial

CONSTITUTIONALissues. One of this is the so called "citizen's arrest", what

occurres, when a crime has just happened and the criminal is taken to custody

by a non-official, a civilian.. These occasions are rare however, because if the

civil person cannot prove that his/her captive is guilty, he himself/she herselfwould be taken to prison (this is called "false arrest")

Another infra-convention is the custom of having the elections only in

Thursdays, if possible, during the summer, what has long historic traditions, but

there is no rule to make it a must.

e) usages, based on ceremonial issues: Sometimes strange traditions connected

to ceremonies are included here. For example, the chancellor had to go on to

40 days "exile" before the Budget day (the day, the budget is announced) and

after that, in the day, s/he went on a trip with his/her family and the whole

"budget team"(and with the media), on arriving to his/her house, s/he showed

around a box, announced the budget, then a GLASS OF WHISKY was offered tohim/her (since Tony Blair, it is now banished).

Another example here was the custom that nobody is allowed to turn a back to

the monarch, what was banished lately, too.

6. Usages: (Megszokson alapul trvnyek)It is a kind of unofficial compilation of laws, where the lawmaking is placed upon the

basis of customs: whether people has got used to do something. In these cases,

practice can change the commitments, this also contributes to the flexibility. This

part includes such "agreements" as politicians are not accepted to make any

comment on judgements, whereas the media can criticise it as much as it wants.

7. Authors on the constitution:Several works and publications of authors and writers also contribute to the

"constitution".

8. EU laws:

Since GB joined the EU in 1973, the compilation of law widened with the category of

laws created by the European Union. This is due to a kind of national "reluctance"

towards the EU, opposing its mostly binding and restricting "unbritish" legislature.

III. Elections: Since 2011 (sorry, but am not sure about the date), elections must take place in

every 5 years (fixed-termed parliament), but before, a party announced new elections

whenever it wanted so whenever its popularity was at the top.

1. The system of first-past-the-pole (or First-past-the-post): It means that (unlike inHungary) there is only 1 turn and whoever wins that one, will be the prime minister


6/26

and can form a government. I doesn't depend on the percentage compared to the

whole country, the party gaining the higher number of votes wins, regardless of

whether they are a minority compared the whole country or not (anyone can win by

30% e.g., because it doesn't matter that 70% of the country voted to another party, as

there are almost no coalitions).

IV. The parliament and the governing structure:Since England is CONSTITUTIONAL monarchy, everything is done in the name of the current

monarch, but the "ruler" is far cry from having real power. Since the Magna Charta (1215),

royal powers have been trimmed and since the Bill of Rights in 1689 (connected to the

Glorious Revolution of William of Orange Orniaia Vilmos), it has changed a lot. Today,

the role of the monarch is transferred to the Prime Minister, since the monarch has nothing

to do with the parliament.

1. The role of the monarch:

Since the kings and queens of England have no real power, they only participate in

ceremonial events like the opening of the parliament. On the other hand, as the all-time

monarch is the (honourable) ruler of other countries (so called the dependences) likeCanada or Australia, s/he has to power to influence the laws of smaller and weaker parts

of the once-great British Commonwealth (like the isles of Fiji) through the Privy Council

(kirlyi llamtancs), esatblished in the 1490s and used as a "prototype" of the cabinet

thereafter.

2. The role of the Houses of Parliament:

Although it consists of 2 houses, the Commons and the Lords, the latter has

absolutely no or very little power, so the word "parliament" is generally used for the

previous one. It is an omnipotent institution of the executive power; however, it does

not stand alone in the everyday work. The so called cabinet has expert employers

(called civil servants generally, and their system is the Civil Service), who are incharge of the whole system to operate. It is true that the Prime Minister has quite an

important position (having the right of veto for example), but the cabinet itself is the

"oil in the machine", so it makes the schedule for the Prime, too. The importance of

the cabinet can be seen in the kind of convention, that the Prime must not force

his/her will to the civil servant (take Margaret Thatcher as an example, who had to

resign because of it), or at war, the cabinet is responsible for dealing with the

affaires.

After the Election Day, a list of names is given to the Prime, in which the employers of

the Civil Service are presented. Although, in legal terms, everyone can be a civil

servant, but as it is rather a stabile position (unlike in many places like HUN and USA,where the parties have their own civil servants). In fact, the cabinet has the job of

working out the point of view of Great Britain about many many cases, since they

employ experts from every walk of life (such as "china-experts" etc.), and they

mediate between the monarch &the prime, or the parliament etc. That is why the

cabinet is the key to understand the governing structure of Britain. It has historical

importance, too, opposing the fact that cabinet meetings HAVE NO OFFICIAL

RECORDS until 1916, when Prime Minister Lloyd-George CONSTITUTIONALISEDit, but

till that time, meetings were completely unofficial. The cabinet is very deeply

involved in the executive branch.

It has some parts in the judicial system as well. (system: simple court county court high courtsupreme court). The cabinet can make decisions in cases where


7/26

judges have NO POWER, likejuvenile delinquency (fiatalkor bnzs). There are no

clear borders, however.

The cabinet differs from the government in many respects, like, while the latter

consists of more than 150-200 members, the previous one is run by only some 25-50

employers.

3. The system of ministries: (take the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as an example)

DEPARTMENTS

Functionaries

They have long historical tradition. These secretaries don't report to the Secretary of State (S

of S), but to the Permanent Under-secretary of State (which is under the S of S). Among the

departments, there is NO COORDINATION

There is the so called Whitehall (road in the City of Westminster, in central London), where

every ministries are located. The civil service is so deeply-rooted in the system of governing

that it is sometimes called the "unbreakable wall", as it has more than 0,5 million

employers.

Vocabulary:

codify: rsba foglal; decree: rendelet; gazump: szbeli megegyezsen alapulads/vtel; Habeas Corpus: (from 1679) it's anAct of the Parliament of Englandpassed during the reign of King Charles II to define and strengthen the ancientprerogative writ of habeas corpus, a procedural device to force the courts to examinethe lawfulness of a prisoner's detention.

Landslide elections

Landslide election is the name of the phenomena, when a political party wins an election

with such an overwhelming majority that it is able to change fundamental issues.

I. Mixed government: It is a government that consists of several parts, the British

government was such an institution around the 18th century and it was based on 3

principles.

1. Monarchy: (monarchical pr.)2. Aristocracy: (aristocratic) House of Lords (entrenched, not elected)

3. Democracy: (democratic) House of Commons (elected representatives)

There was no democracy in Englnad that time (acc. to some), but an aristocratic

system was operating, until the era of revolutions came (Great French Revolution in

1789 e.g.) and the power-wielders started to fear their status (and life). They decided

to broaden the franchise (vlasztjog).

II. Landslide elections: The governing system was based on the principle of "checks and

balances" (sorry, if I misheard the 1st one, am not sure...) This system provided a kind of

balance against extremism (szlsgespol.-i felfogs) in such a way that the 3 principlesmentioned above counterbalanced each other (so, if there was a "misuse" on the side of


8/26

the monarch, the aristocracy acted against it for example) and this system was operating

on a regular and moderated basis (no revolution). As revolutions started to struck all

around Euorpe however, the leaders decided to give franchise to more people in order

to aviod a revolution.

1. 1832: (Reform Act) The middle-class was given the right to vote on the basis ofproperty qualification (vagyoni alapon) (around 50 from any type of icome, that

time a great deal of money), so the number of voters had increased, but still only the

minority of the population was allowed to vote.

2. 1867: (Reform Act II) That time, political opinions were formed in political clubs (like

the Tories, the Whigs) led by a charismatic leader. These leader realised after some

time that further chnages had to be made, so the franchise was broadened agian, but

this time, it was exteded to the whole urban working class, increasing extensively the

number of voters (app. 60% of the pop.). The property quality was around 10 in

their case, but thier hostels and residences were taken into account. (Nota bene:women was not allowed to vote until 1918) However, there was a so called

"bachelor tax", which was imposed to unmarried men, who had the right to vote.

3. 1884: (Reform Act III and Redistribution (of Parliament Seats) Act in 1885)

The franchise was extended to ruler workers ("peasants"), so it had become a

universal right, now the 96% of the pop. had this right. (Exceptions:mentally

disordered people, members of the House of Lords and prisoners.) This act resulted,

however, in seroious, unexpected consequences, which were called later the

landslide elections.

4. 1905: (general elections) So far, in the realm of English politics, there were strong

oppositions, so none of the sides could wield overwhelming power without any

borde due to the existence of balanced governments. This moderated status changed

that year.

In 1905, the Liberal Democrat Party (Whig) gained an enormous majority (Liberal

Landslide), so it wiped out the Tories, so the Liberal Democrats could possibly do

ANYTHING they wanted, there was no balance.

a) positive results: The term "welfare state" was put in practice.

sick leave was introduced (tppnz)

state pensions were paid

maternity leave was introduced (but only for 2 days) (gyes)

b) negative: A sense of class-hatred started to spread

5. 1922: Liberal Democrat majority again

6. 1945: The Labour Landslide (by this time, the Liberal Democrats had almost been

disappeared!)

The Labour Party (consisted of trade unions, employees etc.), led by Clement Atlee

("conservative" mentality), became the biggest party in the Parliament, so it could

carry out several revolutionary changes, like comprehensive system of education,developments in healthcare (free) and nationalisation of private industry. This way,


9/26

the state had more & more responsibility, so the CONSTITUTION was changed. There

was no balance again (as there was no counterbalance neither from outside nor from

inside the party).

7. 1979: (general elections) By this time, the Labouriteswith their strict rules had driven

GB to poverty, so general changes were required immediately. This time, theConservative Party (Tory) won, led by the charismatic Margaret Thatcher (the "Iron

Lady"). Thatcher changed England totally. Almost everything was supervised from

education, economy, entrepreneurship to even the use of spoken language. The

private system was restored finally (alienation) where different potential investers

had to compete with each other. Banking and financial status were taken into

account as a major principle.

8. 1997: (general elections) The power of Thatcher had grown so immense that

eventually she was forced to resign, so without her, the party could not win again.

This time, the Labourite leader Tony Blair led the election list whose party won moreseats than any party in the history of GB politics ever.

a) 2001 (Terrorism Act): It was a kind of prevention responding to 9/11 in the US

(and also to Northern-Irland terroristic acts comitted by the IRA), so, as a

consequece of these, the CONSTITUTION was rewritten again, but this time,

stricter rules were included than ever (including the abolishment of right to

silence in courts, and from now on, might-be criminals could be held in detension

for 60 days without any accusation).

9. 2010: (general elections) Conservative victory under the leaderhip of David Cameron.

The phenomenon of landslide elections was abolished by a convention for ever, so,

coalition has to be made since that time, furhermore, confidence has become very

important even inside the party, so if a representative fails to keep his/her

confidence, he/she has to resign. The time of next election has also been determined

(May of 2015) which is unprecedented in GB history. The main goal of this

government is to cope with the economic crisis (huge deficit) so different kinds of

payments has been introduced (like the university tuition fee, which triggered nation-

wide public outcry).


10/26

GB Parliament

I The Parliament: (according to Bagehot from1867)

The UK Parliament consists of 2 Houses, the Lords and the Commons, and both has its

role in the most important responsibility of the Parliament, the law-making, but of

course, the Commons has more power. So, by Parliament, we mostly understand the

part of the Commons. Acc. to Bagehot, the Parliament has 5 important functions:

1 Decision-making: One role of the House is to decide whether someone can become

the member of the cabinet or not (although, it is very rarely changes its members)

a) electoral chamber: This is the place, where the electors are situated, voting and

debating takes place here, too. There is a title so called "The Father of the House"

(kb. hzelnk), who usually has the longest membership in the Commons ("a

politician never retires"). S/he is only responsible for supervising the process of

debates, votes etc and s/he is chosen by a vote of confidence.

2 Expressive function: The Parliament gives voice to the opinions of the Members, too.

a) Hansard: Although, debates and speeches today are recorded by cameras, the

most influential role of informing is placed on parliamentary reviews and the

"newspaper" being in charge here is the Hansard. In England, reviews are thought

to be so confidential that only the content of the Hansard has to be taken into

account, no matter how smth happened in real life, no matter what could be

seen in the TV, if the Hansard states smth, it must be correct. So, that is to say, ithas a kind of "censoring" role, as only the content of it is accepted as official, so

nasty arguments are usually moderated this way.

3 Teaching function: Politicians who have a long time spent in the Commons ("retired

politicians"), are usually earn so much respect to themselves that they are constantly

being asked to give advice to younger Members of Parliament (and this way, they

educate them by sharing their experiences). Or, they simply make comments on the

actual status of the country (for example: healthcare, infrastructure, developments

etc.). Of course, it is less common than it was before the era of media (note however,

that before 1978, there was no record! due to general secrecy)4 Informing function: (similar to (b))

The Parliament has a kind of informing status to a certain extent, as during the long

long speeches, almost every really relevant piece of news is mentioned from

scientific ones to news from abroad. It is a kind of thing, which keeps the country

together.

5 Legislation: Although law-making is regarded as the utmost important role of the

Parliament, it is only partly true, because a significant amount of things is determined

well before a debate on it is announced.


11/26

a) making a law: The process of law-making is generally done through debates and

voting. Debates are held several times and the House of Lords is also included.

b) the process: (with the aid of James O'Driscoll's book: "Britain for learners of

English", but simplified)

bill: First, a proposal is made. Then, a kind of writ is published which exploresthe causes of the proposal. In the case of a government paper, it has 2 types:

it can be a Green paper (it explains the ideas and causes behind the proposal)

or it can be a White paper(same as the previous one, but more explicit and

committed). After this, lawyers reword the proposal into a bill. Then, the bill

goes through different stages in the Commons. The leader of the House (the

speaker government) announces the date of the debate.

First Reading: The MP (Member of the Parliament) reads the long and short

titleof the bill (the short one is the formal name, in which it is used in courts

for example citation, the long one is also formal, but with a shortdescription of the law). This time, there is no debate.

Second Reading: The Parliament debates only on the principleof the bill, not

the whole bill, then they take a vote ("The House is now divide")

Committee Stage: ("Bill goes upstairs"). In this stage, the Commons debates

the details of the bill and votes on amendments (kiegsztsek). Here, there's

an interesting custom. Every representative has to choose between 2 doors

by going through them (one is called the "Aye Lobby" support, the other is

called "No Lobby" against the bill)

Report Stage: The House considers the amendments (in fact, representatives

start to debate loudly)

Third Reading: There's a new, amended bill and it is debated as a whole. Here

the representatives can "make up their mind" about the bill, then it is passed

on to the Lords.

the role of the House of Lords: Here, the bill goes through the same stages (in

fact, this process is really short, takes approximately 10 minutes) and the

Lords debate on it. They have 2 options:

(a)send back: They can send it back to the Commons with a request ofchange, suggested by them.

(b)dismissal: They can reject it as a whole (but this case is very rare lasttime in 1992, War Crime Bill). However, the Commons is superior since

1911 (no Lords permission is needed for a bill to become a law)

becoming a law: After a bill is accepted, it is sealed (lepecstelik) with a

special stamp, with a writ on it "the Queen wants it" in Norman French

(Norman korban hasznlt francia) "la reyne le veult".


12/26

The territory of Great Britain and their role in politics

I Short history: The UK was once a great empire with lots of members in the

Commonwealth of England (Angliai llamkzssg) (including India, Canada etc.), but

Scotland Wales and Ireland in fact wereparts of the UK (by force and conquest). The

whole of Scotland and Ireland (after the revolution of Cromwell) was incorporated

(bekebelez), as well as Wales. In the times of the Commonwealth and the British Empire,

in such a "welfare state", ethnic problems were not as common as they are today. After

the country started to become poorer, these different nations started to rebel against

the English reign. These otherwise ancient nations trace their legacies from Celtic

ancestorsrooting in Celtic tradition; therefore, they are commonly referred as the Celtic

branch.

II

The members of the Celtic Branch:1 Wales: The Territory of Wales was not intended to be ruled by England in the

beginning (Welsh means "Foreigner" in Old English (angol)), but now, it is ruled by

the Prince of Wales (Prince Charles 2012), who is a member of the Royal Family,

and officially, England is called England and Wales (among others, since the country

has several "official" names). Despite being the member of the UK, Wales has its own

legislative institution called the Welsh Assembly(National Assembly for Wales) with

elections every 4 years and with 60 members (called AMs, that is, Assembly

Members) responsible for local issues. They have the power to accept laws for Wales

without consulting with the UK Parliament (since 2011).2 Scotland: Since the Act of Union in 1707, Scotland is part of the UK. Being one of the

most independent nations of England, Scotland has special privileges.

a) Scottish Parliament: (generally referred to as "Holyrood", since it is situated in

this area of Edinburgh) It has 129 members (called MSPs, Members of the

Scottish Parliament), being elected in every 4 years and having power to accept

laws on their own; however, the UK Parliament has the right to extend or reduce

the areas in which it can make laws. Time and time again, Westminster (UK

Parliament) debates on issues which might have Scottish relations, but domestic

policy (local law) is controlled by the MSPs and education, healthcare, agricultureand justice is under the power of Scottish Parliament.

b) education: It is very different from English education. They have a broadened

curricula (that is, they teach a bigger variety of subjects and because of this, the

first years at Scottish universities consist of 4 years), they have different exams,

and it is particularly interesting that ancient universities (like the University of

Edinburgh) use the term "Master of Art" for the first degree in humanities.

c) religion: Scotland officially does not belong to the Church of England, instead,

traditional Catholic Christianity prevails here.

d) different legal system: The legal system of Scotland is based on Roman law,

instead of the Anglo-Saxon one, so the responsibility of judges is high, because


13/26

there is no jury(eskdtszk). Interestingly, a court in Scotland can announce not

only 2, but 3 verdicts (tlet), so besides being "guilty" and "not guilty", the court

might announce "not proven" which means that the person is not found guilty,

but he/she is not cleared of guilt, either.

3 Ireland: (Note that only Northern Ireland is part of the UK, The Republic of Irelanditself is an independent country)

a) brief history: The region was not conquered in the Roman era, so it remained so

unknown in Europe that it was believed to be the place of Purgatory or Hell. In

1154, Henry I decided to colonise Ireland, so he went to Pope Adrian IV (only

English pope in history Nicolas Breakspeare), who organised a brief crusade to

gain power in the country while 2 Celtic chieftains was waging war against each

other. Later, after years of sequential wars, in 1603, English dominance spread to

the country and in 1801, it became part of the UK. After a war of independence in

1919, Ireland was separated (in 1921 Northern and Southern and Southernbecame independent (1922).

b) Home Rule: (There were 4: in 1886, 1893, 1914, 1920 Government Act, giving

more and more rights to Ireland). It established officially the Republic of Ireland,

but because of protestant dominancy in the North, this part remained under

English domination. Despite that, the Parliament of Northern Ireland was

established, too.

c) Parliament of Northern Ireland: (simplified "version" since the governing here is

very complicated) The Northern Ireland Assemblyis unicameral (egykamars) It

has 108 members from the 6 ancient counties (called MLAs, Members of the

Legislative Assembly), elected in every 4 years. The Monarch is represented by

the Governor (initially by the Lord Lieutenant "fispn"), who granted Royal

Assent to Acts of Parliament in Northern Ireland, but executive power rested

with the Prime Minister, the leader of the largest party in the House of

Commons. It has the right to accept laws, but in more important issues, the UK

Parliament decides, or at least, UK permission is needed.

d) Northern Ireland Executive: The Northern Ireland Executive is the administrative

branch of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the devolved legislature (trvnyhoz

testlet) for Northern Ireland. It is answerable to the Assembly and was

established on the basis of the Northern Ireland Act in 1998.

4 Connections between the UK and the Celtic Branch: Officially, Westminster has no

connection with the national parliaments, since it has only loose relationship with

them. Today, this relationship is rather controversial, as for example, a Scottish-

English referendum (npszavazs) was held in 2012 to create new shapes to the

relations.

a) the West Lothian question: The existence of 2 parliaments in England (1 for the

whole GB and 1 only for Scotland) rises much controversy, since the fact that

what should make the borders for the previous and what should make for the


14/26


15/26

a) weak presidency: The president nearly has any power (like in Ireland) and in some

cases, the president has only ceremonial purposes like the monarch of GB.

b) strong presidency: In countries following this way, the president has almost

absolute power, he/she is literally the "head of the state" (like in France), having

the capability of carrying out entirely new issues alone (see Obamacare above).II Presidency within the confines of the US:

The US is typically a country where there is strong presidency in practice (too strong,

according to some). Here, the branches of power (legislature, executive, and judiciary)

are artificially separated, where legislature is led by the congress, judiciary is led by the

Supreme Courtand the head of executive is the presidentitself. The importance of the

president in the US dates back to the time of the war of independence.

1 Brief history of the status of the president:

After the great waves of colonialisation, 13 colonieswere established, all consisting

of (more or less rich) merchants, sailsmen and farmers. The colonies, however, wereconstantly jeopardised by the French colonies which were stronger in practice than

the US who lacked proper military forces. To make these assaults stop, GB sent huge

number of troops to help out the US (the US played an important role in the global

market of the British Commonwealth). After subsequent battles, the French was

forced to retreat, but GB spent so much on them that the government tried to make

the US pay for it (in practice, some % of the US trade income had to be paid to the GB

treasury). The US refused to do this on the principle of "no taxation without

representation", as they did not take part in English parliamentary debates. Due to

this contradiction, GB ceased helping them maintaining the governing structure and

soon, wartime conditions of the war of independence lead to the establishment of a

local governing structure, led by the president of the US.

III The uniqueness of the US system:

The unique aspect of the US governing system embodies in the phenomenon of the so

calledcohabitation. In the US, there are2 kinds of general elections: one for choosing a

president and one (after 2 years of the previous one) for choosing the members of the

congress.It is not necessary that after the presidential nominee of one party won, the

same party will be in majority in the congress. (President Obama(Dem), for example, had

to co-operate with a Republican congress, but his power was so huge that he could carry

out the controversial Obamacare (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) despite

the fiery protest of the congress).

1 Some aspects of the US CONSTITUTION: To get a clearer picture of the system, one

should become familiar with the basics of the US constitution.

a) origin: Although, the whole compilation of laws was created by the Founding

Fathers (like Benjamin Franklin or George Washington), this artificial constitution

is still a kind of descendant of the British and the French ones. There are

similarities between them like the President is the head of the executive branch

of power.


16/26

b) social bargaining: A widely common aspect of GB constitutional practise is also

involved, namely, the fact that (almost) every individual can influence the

constitutional law. That is to say, different laws are so "briefly" and "freely"

formulated that they can be arguedand can be changed by, for example, an

unprecedented court trial where the judge accepts the special status of someone,despite it is regarded as illegal by the law.

2 Debates about the making of the US:

When the fundamental laws of the country were created, the Founding Fathers held

debates on highly important issues concerning the US. They argued about whether

there should be a strong or a weak presidency, or should their country placed upon

the basis of a federal constitution(so each state has their own rights as today) or

not. These were completely up-to-date questions that time, since the US, as a new-

born country, didn't have centuries of history behind it, like most European countries

have. There is no ancient or simply old legitimacy there even today, because (as theykeep saying) the US was born from an idea (it is said to be the "freedom"). Protestant

ideology also took part in the concept of the Founding Fathers and it is still present in

present day US as a kind of "missionary attitude" towards homeland: that is the

cause why the law prohibits dishonouring the national flag, for example.

IV The special status of US judges: (please note that this is a rather schematic figure!!!)

The US (as GB) system of jurisdiction is based on the application ofjury(eskdtszk).

Although, they vote, they proclaim the verdict while the judge seems to be only in charge

of the legal and "fair" procedure of the whole trial (as what decision is acceptable and

what is not), but in fact the judge has very influential power over the court trial. He/she

can proclaim another verdict, which might be totally the opposite of the decision of the

jury. This does not happen quite often, but not impossible. In theory, the jurors

investigates the question of fact and proofs(whether the accusation was well

established with proofs or not), while the judge investigates the question of law. So, the

judge is the official, who knows the methods of the law, of course, they are not allowed

to propose an entirely false verdict without any support.

1 Very brief history of the system: The strange phenomenon dates back to the

Napoleonic times. The emperor prohibited the judges to make general

announcements(so to create laws on their own), and ordered them to follow the so

called Code Civilor Code Napoleon(the compilation of laws made by Napoleon)

only. This system was adopted to the so called Philadelphia Convention(1787),

where it was modified, so the judiciary system today is not separated in practice from

legislation, a judge can propose an established, but different verdict if he/she

adjudge the situation differently.

2 Articles of confederation: (from wiki)

The Articles of Confederation, formally the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual

Union, was an agreement among the 13 founding states that established the United

States of America as a confederation of sovereign statesand served as its first


17/26

constitution. Its drafting by the Continental Congressbegan in mid-1776 and an

approved version was sent to the states for ratification in late 1777. The formal

ratification by all 13 states was completed in the beginning of 1781. Even when not

yet ratified, the Articles provided domestic and international legitimacy for the

Continental Congress to direct the American Revolutionary War, conduct diplomacywith Europe and deal with territorial issues and Indian relations. Nevertheless, the

weak government created by the Articles became a matter of concern for key

nationalists. On March 4, 1789, the Articles were replaced with the U.S. Constitution.

The new Constitution provided for a much stronger national government with a chief

executive (the president), courts and taxing powers.

V The 13 colonies: (Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut,

Massachusetts Bay, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North

Carolina, and Rhode Island). They were mostly of non-English origin in their names. A lot

of them were a kind of inheritance of GB (like Georgia King George III or most notably,Virginia Elisabeth III ("the virgin queen"). Another origin was the name of English

settlements like New Jersey), or there were Native words, too, like Connecticut.

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont1are

usually referred to as "New England".

1 Opposition between North and South: N and S were so different (in their inhabitants

in their interests and so on) that almost no sooner the War of Independence was

over, a new kind of opposition started to shape between the 2 areas.

a) the federalist North: The majority of the population here consisted of rich upper-

middle-, or middleclass land-owners, who wanted a country of clear and strong

governing, where they would prevail. The North was led by (most notably)

George Washington and Benjamin Franklin.

b) the anti-federalist South: They consisted of rather poor farmers, who came from

different parts of the world, escaping from the strict rules and regulations of their

home countries to exploit the opportunities of America (like slavery or large

fields). Of course, they were against the idea of a strong (rather centralised)

government. They didn't want another "nobility", as it is commonly said, they

wanted to remain independent. Here, most people earned their livings from

exploiting slavery in sugar-and-cotton plantations. This side was led by Patrick

Henry and Tom Paine.

c) the Civil War: (18611865) The opposition were so huge that they led to a war

inside the country. The long and bloody war, which is probably the most cruel

example in the history of warfare, finished with the victory of the North,

abolishing the slavery (in theory) from the territory of the US.

1It joined later, it wasn't a part of the 13 colonies


18/26

2 The Philadelphia Convention (1787): After the war, people (in both sides) realised the

fact that they have literally no governing system, so 55 brave men started to make

one up.

a) original colonies: Local arrangements, local issues (like marriages or punishment)

were settled locally, based on Native-American conventions, but the system didnot work properly. The US even did not have a capital city (Washington DC later).

b) the Founding Fathers: These 55 men were not representatives or any other

officials, they just started thinking about dissolving the chaos of those years. They

examined the existing governing systems in total secrecy, while nobody entitled

them to do so. They gathered together in Philadelphia, where 7 states

represented themselves. They figured out the entire system debating constantly,

so the CONSTITUTION shows this "style of formal agreements". However, it

formulates an 18 c. idea of democracy, which is unlike the idea used today. This is

the cause, why there are so many amendments(kiegsztsek) in it, as people arereluctant to re-write it.

c) The US CONSTITUTION: The 1st article of it deals with the bi-cameral

(ktkamars) parliamentary system of the US. They are based on the principle of

"checks and balances", were the emphasis is put on balanceand the separation

of the houses.

Senate: (the upper house) Each state delegates 2 representatives for 6 years,

100 seats altogether; no real elections by the people, the delegates are

appointed on the basis of respect and social "reputation".

House of Representatives: 435 seats, elections in every 2 years which causes a

sense of insecurity

This institution have more power than the previous one. Elections are led by

the principle of "Plurality voting system" 1st wins

electoral boundaries: Districts for elections do not correspond to real borders,

that's why it is easier to cheat (Gerrymandering from Gerry Mander's

name, it is the act of creating artificial boundaries in such a way to make a

certain representative win black Americans in majority but represented by

white men bc of this machination).

general elections: In every 4 years

d) US Bill of Rights: In GB, the Bill regulated the issues concerning the connection of

the monarch, the cabinet and the rather centralised government, so in the US,

people wanted an individualB of Rs.

VI US Presidential power:

1 A comparison: As the lecture is based on a comparison between the UK and the US

system, this subsection will present the US way, while devoting some words to the

GB parallel, too.

a) Presidency: The US President has overwhelming power over the cabinet andother particular parts of governing (like legislation etc.), thus, a US President


19/26

cannot be "terrified" with any kind of act. Unlike in GB, where there are so called

"PM Qs", Prime Minister Questions, when the whole House of Commons

bombards him/her with questions and he/she must answer it immediately and

with great precision.Such thing is impossible in the US.

2 Powers given to the US President:a) criteria: There are some requirements of being a US president stated in the

CONSTITUTION. Someone, who wants to nominate him/herself to this position

must livein the US for at least 14 years from the time of nomination (but

strongly should be a native-born), must be at least 35 years old and must be a

US citizen.

b) 3 types of things affect strongly the power a P can wield:

CONSTITUTION: A US P has several rights stated in the CONS.

s/he has to "take care" of the laws, as the ultimate leader of the executive

branch of power. However, the CONS never says whether s/he has thepower to create laws or not, but a P can (kind of convention, unlike in GB)

the US P is the commander-in-chief of the military forces if the country if

it is at war; however, s/he is unable to declare war without the permission

of the Congress. S/he can answer to an ambush solely, but can only

continue waging war with the permission. In GB, the monarch has the

power to declare war on the basis of his/her discretionary powers2on the

basis of national consensus.

The P has to right to recall any member of the Senate or the House of

Representatives (although it has never happened in the US history), while

a GB P cannot do such a thing.

the P has a right to veto (to dismiss a potential law) in legislature.The

Congress (the Senate and the House of Representatives together) can re-

veto the Ps veto, however to do this, 2/3 majority is needed in both

House and Senate(so it's pretty rare). Such things never happen in GB

where "the time decides" whether something is CONSTITUTIONAL or not.

If such a question had arisen in the US; however, only the Supreme Court

would be able to decide about its validity.

the president him/herself can sign an act, unlike in GB, where the

Parliament debates on it

has the power of making treaties with foreign independent powers3

2In a parliamentary or semi-presidential system of government, a reserve (or discretionary) power is a power

that may be exercised by the head of state without the approval of another branch of the government. Unlike

in a presidential system of government, the head of state is generally constrained by the cabinet or the

legislature in a parliamentary system, and most reserve powers are usable only in certain exceptional

circumstances.3Around the mid 1800s, when this law was passed, there were few so called individual powers that did not

belong to either of the Empires, like the Brittish Commonwealth etc.


20/26

can grant pardons (kegyelem) to individuals, who committed a felony (a

major crime; not used in GB but used frequently in the US), although it

rarely happens. This procedure is impossible in GB, where only the

judiciary branch can decide about a verdict

extension of CONS: Since the US was a poor country in the 1800s becoming awelfare state only in the 1900s, the powers of the P had to be changed. In the

US, however, the original wording of the CONS must be conserved, so the

extend it every time when it is needed (amendments).

inherent powers: In the US, the President has sovereign powers deriving

from the loosely-worded statement of the CONS: "the executive Power

shall be vested (rszll, rhagy) in a President". This embodies in the so

called presidential orders. This originates from the time of the Civil War,

where President Lincoln had to decide immediately about waging war

with the South, so he arbitrarily extended the expenditure of military

forces. This is the case with a so called preventive war, too, when a

country attacks another state to prevent the ambush of it. The Congress

can explicitly delegate this power to the P in serious cases.

(i) New Deal: (1933-1936) Roosevelt was given the right to inject serious

sums of money to the US economy to reduce extreme unemployment.

He established the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) in which he

started having huge dams built; thus, giving work to hundreds of

thousands of unemployed workers.

(ii) Nixon: He was given the power to freeze wages and prices.

In GB, a President can do it, too, but it happens very rarely. It is

regulated by the Privy (Royal Court of Justice), resorting to an Order in

Council4.

the War Powers Resolution: (1973) It is a federal law intended to check

the President's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict

without the consent of the Congress. It was established after 2 notorious

incidents which happened abroad.

(i) Bay of Pigs Invasion: In 1961, in Cuba led by Dictator Fidel Castro, the

CIA organised a well-formed plan how to send special military forces

to capture (or kill) Castro. It finished with an ultimate failure however,

as no sooner the troops landed, they were captured and arrested by

the Cubans.

4A representative of the government (generally a cabinet minister or the Lord President of the Council) reads

out batches of Orders in Council drafted by the government in front of the Queen, who, after every couple of

orders, says 'Approved'. They then pass into law, and come into effect. However several instances have been

recorded where a governor has questioned the technical basis of a proposed regulation, refused assent, andthe order has been returned to the relevant department for revision. To see more go to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_in_Council


21/26

(ii) Gulf of Tonkin: In 1964 in Vietnam, the French were forced to leave

the country to give opportunity to local governing; however, it

immediately became the target of 2 superpowers: the Soviet Union

and the US. In order to prevent Soviet lead, the US sent a battleship to

attack 2 North-Vietnamese battleships without caution. These shipssank, but opposing the facts, the US government stated that the

Vietnamese started the ambush so the US declared a war. Later, it

was revealed and it caused enormous public outcry.

popular appeal: In the US, the power is greatly affected by the fact how

popular is the person of the current president, as the P wins not as a member

of a party, but an individual candidate (unlike in GB, where parties take part

in elections). In the US, people elect directlythe president, so this way, even

the Congress can be put into the shade (httrbe szort) to some extent. This

overwhelming effect is immensely affected by the so called State of the Unionaddresses. They are special occasions when the P directly gives speeches to

the people via the TV (this is however a GB CONS issue adopted to the US

system later)

McCarthyism: (mccarthyzmus) This effect is easier to understand by

explaining its origin. Senator Joseph McCarthy accused many politicians of

being "communist spies". He gave precise names and by doing this, he not

only destroyed political careers, but made many people commit suicide. It

was highly ridiculous, as later, most of the accused people were proved to

be innocent (hence the ironic name). The public was waiting for

presidential comment on this, but the current President, Eisenhower was

reluctant to do so, so he became so unpopular that he had to resign.

VIIUS Legal branch and judiciary: (in comparison to the British one) The US legal system is

mostly supervised by the Supreme Court, but judges have the right to make a judgement

based on their own opinion (regardless of the opinion of the jury albeit, there's an

enormous pressure on judges to obey the decision of it). Hence the origin of some

"famous" court cases, which later became precedents and as a result of this, a part of the

CONSTITUTION. As in the US the content of the CONS is too "sacred" to be revised, new

laws come into being in the form of amendments. The first 10 amendments are called

the Bill of Rights

1 A more famous amendment and 2 famous cases:

a) Right to bear arms: (2nd amendment) It states the right of the people to keep

and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the

Bill of Rights.

b) Dred Scott v. Sandford: (1857) A Supreme Court decision which has become a

milestone in the history of US slavery. The story in short is the following: Mr.

Scott, of African origin, turned to the court with his plea to "liberate" him from

his status as a slave which bound him to the brother of his master's wife. (In fact,


22/26

during his travels, Mr. Scott married to a non-slave Afro-American woman and

had a non-slave child. With his master, they stayed in State Louisiana, which

granted liberation for those who stayed in the state for some time). Later, this

plea was refused on the basis of "the lack of proofs of his slavery" (technicalities),

and the Supreme Court declared that the federal government had no power toregulate slavery in the territories and that people of African origin (both slave

and free) were not protected by the Constitution and were not U.S. citizens.

c) Roe v. Wade: (1973) It deals with the issue of abortion, whether women have the

right to cease pregnancy and if so, on what basis. The controversial issue finally

became a law, declaring abortion a right of women but only after a strict scrutiny

(alapos, rszletes vizsglat) and only in case of a rape. Another important issue is

the viability of the foetus.

2 The GB legal system in short:

a) common law: (here only common law is stated, as it is closer to the US legalsystem) 2 meanings (old and modern made by judges)

Judges can make laws (which is rather controversial in GB, since there's no

Supreme Court to supervise this procedure). A good example of it is the right to

silence, which prohibits the jury to adjudge the defendant negatively on the basis

of his/her silence when asked. (Since then, Thatcher and Tony Blair challenged

this argument, so sometimes, under different conditions, it is regarded to be a

sign of guilt controversial!!!)

obiter dicta: the comments of judges on laws (plural of obiter dictum)

these laws are still tried and revised

laws made by the Parliament are regarded as "stronger"

1919: equity (jogossg) Loitering without intent, (szndk nlkli

"bmszkods") is considered to be a crime in the UK for people, who are

regarded as not a "bona fide" (reliable person). These individuals were

transported to Australia (which was a prison island that time), for even

frivolous crimes, like stealing a chicken. This law was so extreme that the Lord

Chancellor (fkancellr) of the GB government was given the right to

supervise these decisions in a Court Chancellery, investigating mistreatments

of common law.

magistrates' court: "A magistrates' court or court of petty sessions, formerly

known as a police court, is the lowest level of court in England and Wales and

many other common law jurisdictions. A magistrates' court is presided over

by a tribunal consisting of three justices of the peace (also known as

magistrates) or by a district judge (formerly known as a stipendiary

magistrate) and dispenses summary justice, under powers usually defined by

statute. The tribunal presiding over the Court is commonly referred to simply

as the Bench." (from wiki) The magistrates are always "available", so


23/26

defendants do not have to be put to prison until the date of a trial.

Magistrates do not have to be trained lawyers.

House of Lords: In 2009, the "12 Law Lords" (Lords of Appeal in Ordinary)

moved to a new building from the House of Lords called the Supreme Court of

the United Kingdom. Since that time, the House of Lords lost its (very limited)power in law-making.

"system of lawyers": In GB, there are 2 kinds of lawyers: the so called

solicitorsand the barristers. Solicitors (commonly referred to as "lawyers")

deal with the defendant in person (responsible for paperwork etc.); while

barristers deal with legal procedures in courts (solicitors do not participate

here). These 2 branches are so different that a solicitor e.g. cannot become a

barrister without getting another completely different university degree on

law (usually, barristers are considered as being more educated and more

valued than solicitors).3 The US system: Federal Court System

In a federal court system, every state has its own court system and in the US, there

are country courts, too. Apart from these, there are other levels of courts in the same

time.

a) district courts: "The United States district courts are the general trial courts of the

United States federal court system. Both civil and criminal cases are filed in the

district court, which is a court of law, equity, and admiralty. There is a United

States bankruptcy (NO, it's not a typo...) court associated with each United States

district court. Each federal judicial district has at least one courthouse but many

districts have more than one. The formal name of a district court is "the United

States District Court for" the name of the districtfor example, the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri." (from wiki). The judges here do

not have to be trained lawyers (?) and at these courts, "the burden of proof" is on

the prosecution. Very important that the whole procedure must be carried out

correctly, otherwise the defendant cannot be convicted.

b) circuit courts:"The United States courts of appeals(or circuit courts vidki

trgyalsrakiszll brsg) are the intermediate appellate courts of the United

States federal court system. A court of appeals decides appeals from the district

courts within its federal judicial circuit, and in some instances from other

designated federal courts and administrative agencies. The United States Courts

of Appeals are considered among the most powerful and influential courts in the

United States. Because of their ability to set legal precedent in regions that cover

millions of people, the United States Courts of Appeals have strong policy

influence on U.S. law; however, this political recognition is controversial.

Moreover, because the U.S. Supreme Court chooses to hear fewer than 100 of

the more than 10,000 cases filed with it annually, the United States Courts of

Appeals serve as the final arbiter on most federal cases" (from wiki).


24/26

There are 12 courts which are regionally distributed. (11 + D.C. , stands for

Washington)

SUMMARYI The US:

(Mostly from Alexis de Tocqueville: Democracy in America) He was a Frenchmen, responsible for

reporting to the French Parliament about the US situation in the 19th century. He analysed the

current status of the country, pointing out drawbacks and advantages.

1 His general opinion: He formulates a general opinion about the US during his travels. He says

that in the US, there is:

a) Equality of rights: The rights are extended to women, too, however, slavery is accepted

and slaves are excluded from human rights.

b) "Manifest destiny": (from wiki)

Manifest destiny was the belief widely held by Americans in the 19th century that the

United States was destined to expand across the continent. This concept, born out of "A

sense of mission to redeem the Old World by high example generated by the

potentialities of a new earth for building a new heaven". The phrase itself meant many

different things to many different people. The unity of the definitions ended at

"expansion, prearranged by Heaven". Mid-19th-century politicians would use it to

explain the need for expansion beyond the Louisiana Territory. Manifest destiny

provided the dogma and tone for the largest acquisition of U.S. territory.


25/26

c) Lack of democracy: He found that in the US, people only feel that they live in a

democratic country.

representative democracy and government: In the US, those who have the right to

vote can only vote to representatives, who represent them in certain situations,

opposing to direct democracy where people can vote directly on the questions theyare incolced.

"despotism of public opinion": Every person who wants to be elected should follow

those public behaviours which are thought to be popular. According to T, people are

likely to elect the one whose popularity is the highest, not the person who is capable

of "leading" the country. Mostly, it's the trend of uneducated people.

tyranny of the majority: It happens when a politician is supported by the vast

majority of the Senate. In this case, the majority can abuse the democracy, deceiving

electors with propaganda speeches. On the other hand, when the sides are balanced,

long and never-to-end speeches can confuse the people, concentrating on

persuasion rather the factuality. This weakens the democracy.

violence of party spirit: "Party-politicians" are weak in France that is why T thinks

that strong "party-politicizing", which is typical in the US and in, is rather harmful to

democracy. Politicians here are ruthless and the phenomenon of uncivilised political

speeches is usual.

II The UK: (mostly from Vernon Bogdanor)

1 GB parliament: Although, the GB Parliament (the House of Commons) enjoys absolute

superiority in legislature in theory, there are major limitations in practice. (BE CAREFUL:

POTENTIAL EXAM QUESTIONS!!!)

a) minority issues: (connected to territorial validity) There are members in the House of

Commons from for example Scotland, who vote in questions concerning England (NOT

Great Britain, only England), but English representatives cannot vote on several Scottish,

Irish and Welsh issues. It opposes the fact that a country should seem powerful, not

divided. This phenomenon raises heated debates (see further: West-Lothian question).

b) parliament cannot enact unchangeable rules: The parliament cannot bind itself for the

future.

c) European Union: It imposes regulations and laws, which are obligatory for every member

of the EU.

most GB laws have to be subjected to EU laws, although GB is the " mother of

parliaments"5(this is the cause why GB cannot decide whether to leave the EU or

not)

imperial measurements (like foot lband pound font) are abolished and a

standard based on metrical system is "advised" to use

5Words of the British politician and reformer, John Bright, from a speech at Birmingham on 18 January, 1865


26/26

Monarchy: Dignity (respect) or real power? If so, to what extent?

In the UK, the institution of monarchy is symbolic; however, some

parliamentary and public happenings (like the opening of the Parliament)

cannot work without it, as GB has strong historic and traditional roots.

(NB: GB word for the role of a minister is DEPUTY!)