What makes one democracy thrive while another struggles to keep its balance? And why do the United Kingdom and the United States – two long-standing democracies – interpret constitutional power so differently?
In this comprehensive study, constitutional law specialist James Michael Corbett examines the intersections of state, government, and legal systems across nations. From the balance of power between Congress and Parliament to the evolving role of Supreme Courts in protecting civil rights, this assignment explores how political culture, democratisation, and modernisation shape governance in practice.
Through a rigorous comparative framework, Corbett analyses key constitutional principles, electoral transformations, and the dynamics of political accountability – revealing how legal design shapes political reality, how nations evolve, and how democracies are tested.
A compelling read for students of political science, public law, and international governance – and for anyone intrigued by the forces that shape modern democracy.
Table of Contents
- 1 The Discipline of Comparative Politics
- The discipline of comparative politics and the three political elements
- How the UK and US constitutions promote separation of powers and checks and balances
- The differences in the powers of the US President and the UK Prime Minister
- Where sovereignty lies within the UK and US constitutions
- The differences in the power of Congress and Parliament to scrutinise the executive branch
- How the US and UK Supreme Courts can provide scrutiny of the executive branch
- The Supreme Court of the United States does not adequately protect civil rights
- Foreign policy
- 2 Political Culture and Democratization
- The political research
- State Democratisation in Practice
- The Impact Pressure Groups are able to have in the US and the UK
- The Gary McKinnon Case (Extradition Watch)
- 3 Value Change and Modernization
- The Power of the Electorate
- Citizens make up Democracy
- 4 Electoral Change
- The political decline
- Electoral change and the media
- 5 Predictability/Contingency
- The application of contingency in politics
- 6 Concept-Formation
- 7 Objectivity and Scientific Status
- Doubts in nature and natural theory
- References
Objectives & Themes
The primary objective of this work is to systematically study and compare diverse political systems, particularly focusing on constitutional law. It aims to analyze the differences in political regimes, governance structures, electoral systems, policy outcomes, and public administration across different nations, with a notable emphasis on the United States and the United Kingdom.
- Comparative Constitutional Law and Governance
- Mechanisms of Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances
- The Influence of Political Culture on Democratization
- Dynamics of Electoral Change and Public Participation
- The Role of Judiciary and Executive Power Scrutiny
- Understanding Predictability and Contingency in Politics
Excerpt from the Book
The differences in the powers of the US President and the UK Prime Minister
While the UK prime minister can effectively call for the suspension of Parliament and call a general election, the separation of powers in the US means the president has limited control over Congress. They can theoretically 'adjourn' Congress, as Trump threatened in 2020 over recess appointments, however the lack of use of this power by any president suggests otherwise. Comparatively, while the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011 theoretically limits the UK Prime Minister, the fact that elections occurred in 2017 and 2019 suggests this traditional prerogative power remains relatively intact, demonstrating the PM's considerable power over the legislature, unlike the president. Even if the president were to adjourn Congress, as their Article II powers allow, they would not be able to call for an election to overcome opposition in Congress, as election dates are constitutionally determined, demonstrating an extensive difference in executive power.
There is also a notable difference in appointments to the Supreme Court, furthered by constitutional changes in the UK and US since 2005. The Constitutional Reform Act in the UK allows for the JAC, an independent appointment commission, to appoint judges and limit the role of the Prime Minister. They are not without any role, however it is largely recommendatory. Comparatively, the US president can nominate a justice directly when a vacancy occurs. Since 2005, the approval of these nominations by the Senate has been far more party-political and the expectation of a like-for-like replacement in terms of ideology has largely been ignored, giving the president quite unprecedented power. The role of the president is not only more important than their UK counterpart, they also have greater impact with Supreme Court rulings holding sovereignty due to the codified Constitution. The contrast is therefore stark.
Legislatively, the Prime Minister has a greater formal ability to introduce legislation. While the Prime Minister and president both run campaigns with extensive policy promises made, only the PM has the power to directly introduce legislation into the legislature due to fused powers in the UK. In the US, the president is reliant on gaining at least two sponsors - one for the House of Representatives, and one for the Senate in order for their bill to be considered. This might not be an especially challenging hurdle, however the lack of a guaranteed majority in Congress for the president means even if they are able to get their legislation introduced, it is not certain to pass, whereas the UK PM can almost always get legislation through, even controversial legislation such as the Brexit withdrawal bill.
Summary of Chapters
Chapter 1: The Discipline of Comparative Politics: This chapter introduces comparative politics as the systematic study of diverse political systems, analyzing differences in governance, electoral systems, and public administration, specifically contrasting the UK and US constitutions regarding separation of powers and executive roles.
Chapter 2: Political Culture and Democratization: This section explores the concept of political culture and its significance in democratization, highlighting how cultural traditions and pressure groups influence political behavior and policy outcomes.
Chapter 3: Value Change and Modernization: This chapter discusses shifts in public values within industrial societies, drawing on Inglehart's thesis of post-material value change and examining the electorate's role in democratic processes.
Chapter 4: Electoral Change: This section analyzes how modern electoral processes function, the evolving factors influencing voting decisions, and the significant impact of media on political campaigns and public engagement.
Chapter 5: Predictability/Contingency: This chapter defines and differentiates predictability from contingency in political science, exploring how unforeseen events and strategic political actors influence political outcomes and decision-making.
Chapter 6: Concept-Formation: This section explains concept formation as an inductive strategy for understanding political ideas, emphasizing the necessity of clear and precise concepts for robust theoretical insights and empirical discoveries in political science.
Chapter 7: Objectivity and Scientific Status: This chapter discusses the importance of objectivity in scientific research, particularly within the human sciences, and addresses the challenges and considerations in theory construction when studying politics.
References: This section provides a comprehensive list of all academic sources, books, articles, and studies cited throughout the publication, supporting the arguments and analyses presented.
Keywords
Comparative Politics, Constitutional Law, Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances, Political Culture, Democratization, Electoral Change, Value Change, Predictability, Contingency, Executive Power, Legislative Scrutiny, Supreme Courts, Pressure Groups, Human Rights
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this work fundamentally about?
This work fundamentally presents an analysis of comparative politics within constitutional law, examining the differences between political systems, state structures, governments, and legal frameworks across various nations, primarily focusing on the UK and US.
What are the central thematic areas?
The central thematic areas include the discipline of comparative politics, constitutional mechanisms like separation of powers, political culture and democratization, value change and modernization, electoral dynamics, predictability and contingency in politics, concept-formation, and the scientific status of political inquiry.
What is the primary objective or research question?
The primary objective is to systematically study and compare diverse political systems to analyze differences in their regimes, governance structures, electoral systems, policy outcomes, and public administration, implicitly asking how these differences manifest and impact constitutional law and democratic practice.
Which scientific method is primarily used in comparative politics, as discussed in the text?
The text highlights that comparative politics is characterized by the use of the comparative method or other empirical methods to explore politics both within and between countries, emphasizing theory-building and theory-testing.
What key aspects are covered in the main body of this work?
The main body covers various aspects such as the powers of the US President vs. the UK Prime Minister, where sovereignty lies, the scrutiny power of Congress and Parliament, the role of Supreme Courts in protecting civil rights and scrutinizing the executive, the impact of political culture on democratization, and the influence of pressure groups.
What keywords characterize this work?
Key terms characterizing this work include Comparative Politics, Constitutional Law, Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances, Political Culture, Democratization, Electoral Change, Value Change, Predictability, Contingency, Executive Power, Legislative Scrutiny, Supreme Courts, Pressure Groups, and Human Rights.
How do the UK and US constitutional systems differ in promoting separation of powers and checks and balances?
Both constitutions aim to promote a separation of powers, but the UK's unwritten constitution and fused powers (executive in Parliament) differ significantly from the US's codified constitution and distinct separation of powers, impacting legislative influence and judicial oversight.
What was the significance of the Gary McKinnon case in the context of extradition laws?
The Gary McKinnon case highlighted concerns about unfair extradition proceedings between the UK and US, becoming a prominent example of a successful campaign by a pressure group (Liberty) to prevent extradition based on human rights grounds.
- Arbeit zitieren
- James Michael Corbett (Autor:in), 2024, An Analysis of Comparative Politics in Constitutional Law, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/1661802
