Form of government and political regime

UNIT 1

FORM OF GOVERNMENT

Part 1

FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND POLITICAL REGIME

Vocabulary

Secular state, theocratic state

Form of government; elective/hereditary; monarchy (absolute, constitutional, limited); republic (parliamentary, presidential, semi-presidential, super-presidential)

Separation of powers (executive, legislative, judicial branches); system of "checks and balances"

 

USA: President, the federal government; Congress (Senate; House of Representatives); Supreme Court

 

Legislative (Congress)

· Passes bills; has broad taxing and spending power; regulates inter-state commerce; controls the federal budget; has power to borrow money on the credit of the United States (may be vetoed by President, but vetoes may be overridden with a two-thirds vote of both houses)

· Has sole power to declare war, as well as to raise, support, and regulate the military.

· Oversees, investigates, and makes the rules for the government and its officers.

· Defines by law the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary in cases not specified by the Constitution

· Ratification of treaties signed by the President and gives advice and consent to presidential appointments to the federal judiciary, federal executive departments, and other posts (Senate only)

· Has sole power of impeachment (House of Representatives) and trial of impeachments (Senate); can remove federal executive and judicial officers from office for high crimes and misdemeanors

 

Executive (President)

· Is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces

· Executes the instructions of Congress.

· May veto bills passed by Congress (but the veto may be overridden by a two-thirds majority of both houses)

· Executes the spending authorized by Congress.

· Declares states of emergency and publishes regulations and executive orders.

· Makes executive agreements (does not require ratification) and signs treaties (ratification requiring approval by two-thirds of the Senate).

· Makes appointments to the federal judiciary, federal executive departments, and other posts with the advice and consent of the Senate. Has power to make temporary appointment during the recess of the Senate.

· Has the power to grant "reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

 

Judicial (Supreme Court)

· Determines which laws Congress intended to apply to any given case.

· Exercises judicial review, reviewing the constitutionality of laws.

· Determines how Congress meant the law to apply to disputes.

· Determines how a law acts to determine the disposition of prisoners.

· Determines how a law acts to compel testimony and the production of evidence.

· Determines how laws should be interpreted to assure uniform policies in a top-down fashion via the appeals process, but gives discretion in individual cases to low-level judges. The amount of discretion depends upon the standard of review, determined by the type of case in question.

· Federal judges serve for life.

 

UK: Monarch;

Parliament,bicameral/ two-chamber (House of Lords, House of Commons);

Prime minister, Cabinet (consisting of all the most senior ministers, who are government department heads) are collectively accountable for their policies and actions to the Monarch, to Parliament, to their political party and ultimately to the electorate. Prior to 1902, the Prime Minister sometimes came from the House of Lords, provided that his government could form a majority in the Commons. However as the power of the aristocracy waned during the 19th century the convention developed that the Prime Minister should always sit in the lower house. As leader of the House of Commons, the Prime Minister's authority was further enhanced by the Parliament Act of 1911 which marginalised the influence of the House of Lords in the law-making process.

Law Lords: The final appeal hearings and judgments of the House of Lords took place on 30 July 2009. The judicial role of the House of Lords as the highest appeal court in the UK has ended. From 1 October 2009, the Supreme Court of the UK assumed jurisdiction on points of law for all civil law cases in the UK and all criminal cases in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Justices of the Supreme Court: The 12 Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (the Law Lords) are the first justices of the 12-member Supreme Court and are disqualified from sitting or voting in the House of Lords. When they retire from the Supreme Court they can return to the House of Lords as full Members but newly-appointed Justices of the Supreme Court will not have seats in the House of Lords.

 

Single/multiple executive government (Switzerland has seven executives of the Swiss Federal Council; France has a dual executive of the Prime Minister and President; the USA has a single executive – the President).

 

Political regime; autocracy (totalitarian, authoritarian system), oligarchy, democracy

 

Render the text in English.

Compare the USA and the UK from the point of view of separation of powers and checks-and-balances system. To which extent branches of power are separated in Britain now? had been separated before 2009?

The People versus the Crown

 

Our unwritten constitution is no longer working. Inadequate government is not simply a result of badly thought out policies. Jonathan Freedland explains why more fundamental reform is now urgently needed.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. That's been the rallying cry of the defenders of our ancient, unwritten constitution through the ages – if not always in those words. Sure, say the old guard, our patchwork quilt of unspoken custom and tacit tradition may not make logical sense when set out on a clean sheet of paper – that's one good reason why we keep it unwritten. But, insist the keepers of the flame, our non-systematic system has held up just fine for centuries. So long as it still works, there's no need to change it.

The trouble is, that's no longer true. The system is not working: it is broke – and we need to fix it. For the test of any constitution is the quality of governance it produces. In just the last few years we have seen all too clearly how well our system works: from the great pension scandal of the mid-1980s to the BSE calamity * of the 1990s, from the outbreak of sleaze to the sell-off of our railways, from the poll tax to the debacle of the Dome ** – the proof is all around us of a standard of government that is just not good enough. In each case the system did not contain the checks and balances, the basic scrutiny, that might have weeded out bad legislation and prevented disastrous mistakes.

This cannot be the exclusive fault of this administration or that individual politician. It happens too often for that. Rather, as both the Scott inquiry into the arms-for-Iraq affair or the Phillips report on BSE concluded, the flaw lies in the system itself – the way we are governed. And that means our constitution.

The British people woke up to this fact long ago, even if few dare say it. Polling data consistently show a decline in esteem for our institutions and the system which links them together. While 48% expressed "quite a lot of confidence" in the House of Commons in 1985, that figure had halved by 1995. A year later a European Union poll found that Britons had less faith in their parliament than the people of any member country bar Portugal. Local government's standing has never been weaker, with turnout in council elections dropping like a stone. Trust in our institutions is in freefall, with the young especially disenchanted. One Mori survey found 71% of first-time voters convinced their ballot would "make little or no difference to their lives". We are beginning to vote with our feet – by staying away from the polling station. Britain's turnout figures are in decline, with recent by-elections lucky to involve more than 30% of the vote. In one Leeds seat, the turnout fell below one in five of all registered voters. It all adds up to a growing loss of faith in our system of governance.

These trends are not wholly new: reformers have seen the need for a radical overhaul of our constitution for decades. But now there is an extra urgency. For not only is the old system not working well: it is beginning to come apart. Since 1997 Labour has undertaken a raft of constitutional changes so radical they have historians reaching for the 1830s to find a precedent. Whether it's the rolling programme of devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland or the partial reform of the House of Lords, the current government has shattered forever the traditionalist belief that our system is a frail, mystical thing that belongs in a glass case and can never be touched by human hand. The conservative conviction that the constitution has remained unaltered for centuries – and therefore cannot be changed in future – is gone. The patchwork quilt can be repaired and even renewed: after all, it's unravelling already.

Specifically, Labour's changes have exposed to the light questions that had long been buried – and which now demand to be answered. Take devolution. Until 1997 Britain had never really come clean about its true nature as a multi-national entity: the four constituent nations each had their own cabinet department, but Britain was essentially a unitary state governed from Westminster and Whitehall. Devolution has blown that apart.

It has forced us to recognise that there are distinct countries within Britain, each with the right and ambition to govern itself – whether through a parliament in Edinburgh or assemblies in Cardiff and Belfast. The days of crypto-federalism seem to be over: thanks to devolution, Britain has acted like a country ready to come out as a federal entity.

But not completely. For Labour's decentralisation may have brought to the surface a clutch of dilemmas about Britain, but it has not resolved them. So, for example, most Britons now accept that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland deserve home rule – but what about England? Should Westminster serve as a federal legislature, dealing only with UK-wide problems – or should it double as a de facto English parliament? Why does one of the island nations, Scotland, have more autonomy than the others? Who should sit and vote in the Westminster parliament; in the terms of the famed West Lothian question ***, why should Scottish MPs vote on exclusively English matters when English MPs have no say on exclusively Scottish ones?

What Labour has done is to open a can of worms: the worms were always there, we just couldn't see them before. Now the can is open we cannot look away. Perhaps the best illustration is the House of Lords. Some around Tony Blair might once have thought that expelling all but 92 of the hereditary peers would solve the problems of Britain's second chamber. Instead it's done the opposite, suddenly drawing attention to the absurd democratic deficit in parliament. When the hereditaries were there, the whole body could be written off as some Ruritanian joke ****. But Blair's reforms have prompted Britons to take a closer look. They now see a supposedly reformed second chamber barely more democratic than the blue-blood body it replaced – in which not a single member is elected. Leaving well alone, as the Tories used to advocate, was one thing. Now, say many Britons, if you're going to tinker with the upper house, you might as well make it democratic.

Shattered mystique

And that's a view which is beginning to apply to our entire constitution: now that Labour has broken the taboo by daring to change it, logic demands that it be changed properly – and democratically. For the current, spatchcocked arrangement of old custom and New Labour modernisation risks being the worst of both worlds, creating a constitution that makes no sense and lacks the old (if spurious) defence of ancient continuity. The mystique has shattered at last; now our very system of government is up for grabs. Even the Conservatives are discussing radical, constitutional change: witness William Hague's flirtation with the notion of an English parliament.

There is one last factor which makes urgent our need for a new constitutional settlement. Britain may be an island, but we are not alone. The changes inside the United Kingdom have coincided with profound shifts outside it, too.

We are days away from a summit in Nice which will debate and decide the future shape of the European Union. Who should govern? A simple majority of member nations or each state by wielding its individual veto? How should the peoples of Europe be bound together? With a common currency and a shared military force – or as a loose, free trade area? How should Europe declare its values? With communiques and treaties or with a basic law? In other words, the European Union is in the midst of constitutional upheaval, too.

Beyond even Europe's boundaries, there is a similarly profound argument. The global anti-capitalist movement unleashed in Seattle and Prague asks who should rule the world – its people or the corporations and the World Trade Organisation? On the streets with the protesters or in the summit rooms of Nice, the debate turns on a single word: sovereignty. Put simply, who should be in charge? That's an issue for the world, as it grapples with the domination of Microsoft or Big Oil and gropes for a new regime of global governance. It's an issue for Europe, as it works out whether sovereignty can be pooled or only diluted. And it's an issue for Britain: who is sovereign in our land?

What it all adds up to – the weaknesses of Britain's old system, the changes made by Labour and the worldwide confusion over sovereignty – is a need: we are crying out for a new constitutional settlement. We urgently require a new dispensation that would work better than the current set-up, improve the quality of our governance and yield better outcomes and better policies that would affect all Britons' lives. A new dispensation would also complete some unfinished business left over from Labour's programme of constitutional reform, turning today's "unsettlement" into a settlement. For those who care about the survival of Britain that has become an urgent task: for if we do not decide a future for the union of our nations, then that union will simply unravel. Britain will break apart.

Our country needs this new settlement within our borders to work out our place in the world beyond them. Many reformers have argued that so long as we remain confused over our own sovereignty, we have little chance of sharing or pooling it with others. When the relationship between Scotland and England is still vexed, is it any wonder we cannot find the right connection between Britain and France?

We need to make a change. We need to replace an unwritten constitution which consists of one abstract idea – the crown-in-parliament – with a settlement that fits the nation we have become and the world that now exists. We cannot wear the old, moth-eaten garb of the past any longer: we have outgrown it. This is a new century and a new millennium: we need a new constitution.

 

*BSE calamity – Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, commonly known as mad cow disease. In the United Kingdom, the country worst affected, more than 180,000 cattle have been infected and 4.4 million slaughtered during the eradication program.

**debacle of the Dome – John Major had originally conceived the idea of the Millennium Dome as a relatively small-scale, Festival of Britain event. Then Tony Blair got elected, threw a bunch of money at it and vastly increased the size, scope and funding of the project. Open for just 12 months, it received a total of 6,500,000 visitors, of which 6,000,000 had been to see the Festival of Britain which only ran from May to September. By the time the New Millennium Experience Company was officially liquidated in 2002, audits reported that the total cost of the Dome had been £789 million pounds. Of this, just £189 million was recovered from ticket sales: the rest was paid for by funding secured from the National Lottery.

*** West Lothian question – refers to issues concerning the ability of Members of Parliament from constituencies in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to vote on matters that affect only people living in England. This has occurred because of the devolution of power from Westminster to the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies and Scottish Parliament. The question was first posed by William Gladstone in 1886 in his speech on the first Irish Home Rule bill. It was again raised when the prospect of Scottish devolution was posed in the 1970s. On 14 November 1977 Tam Dalyell, Labour MP for the Scottish constituency of West Lothian, asked during a British House of Commons debate over Scottish and Welsh devolution: For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable members tolerate... at least 119 Honourable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on English politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

**** Ruritanian joke - Ruritania is a fictional country in central Europe which forms the setting for three books by Anthony Hope. It lent its name to a genre of adventure stories known as Ruritanian romances, and is used to refer to a hypothetical country.

Prepare your own talks about different forms of government, make sure you can give several examples of different countries that have or used to have this form of government. Discuss advantages and disadvantages of this form of government.

Split in two groups – one defending the idea of monarchy, the other – of republic. First discuss in groups advantages and disadvantages of both monarchical and republican form of government. Then make a general discussion, trying to support your group’s point of view and find counterarguments to what the other group says.

Part 2

BRITISH MONARCHY

Vocabulary

 

The Plantagenets; The Lancastrians; The Yorkists; The Tudors; The Stewarts; The Hanoverians; Saxe-Coburg-Gotha; The House of Windsor

The Act of Settlement; line of succession to the British throne; primogeniture; Glorious Revolution; Bill of Rights

figurehead

abdicate (the throne in favour of someone); abdication

subjects, sovereign

heir apparent

10 Downing Street, the headquarters of Her Majesty's Government

Whitehall, a metonym for overall British governmental administration

Commonwealth, Commonwealth realms, Dominion

State Opening of Parliament; Speech from the Throne/ Queen's Speech; Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod (or just the Black Rod); Coronation; Trooping the Colour; Royal Ascot; Holyrood Week; Garden Parties; Garter Day

Royal household; Royal assent

 

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/royal_prerogative.htm

Royal prerogatives, The Queen reigns but does not rule:

·The Queen has the right to appoint and dismiss a Prime Minister. However, in the 21^st century this is convention as opposed to reality. In fact, after an election, the Queen chooses the leader of the majority party to lead the Commons. However, what happens if the Prime Minister refuses to quit after losing a vote of no confidence is unclear – as it has never happened in recent political history. Theoretically, the monarch can exercise powers of appointment and dismissal. How this would fit in with a democracy is difficult to decide.

·The monarch has other powers of appointment (ministers, peers, senior C of E officials, head of BBC, senior civil servants, etc.) In reality these are chosen by the Prime Minister; only the Order of the Garter and the Order of Merit are at the personal disposal of the Queen. Therefore, a vast amount of power with regards to senior appointments rests with the Prime Minister.

·The Queen opens and dissolves Parliament. She also approves all statutes of law. In reality, the date of a general election is set by the Prime Minister and the Queen, in the State Opening of Parliament, simply reads out the proposed bills for the next 5 years of a government and plays no part in deciding them. No monarch has refused to give the Royal Assent to a government bill (passed at this stage by both the Commons and Lords) since 1707. Now it would appear to be completely untenable that the Queen would refuse to sign a government bill that had passed the Commons, select committees, the Lords etc. It would spark off a major constitutional crisis.

·In theory, the monarch has the right to grant pardons and input some sentences. In reality this power is exercised by the Home Secretary; a classic example was when Jack Straw stated that Myra Hindley’s life term meant life.

·The monarch, via proclamations or Orders in Council, may declare war or treaties, without the input of the Commons/Lords. In reality, the declaration of war and the signing of treaties is done by the Prime Minister acting on behalf of the Crown. The 2003 declaration of war against Iraq was done by a Prime Minister and not by the monarch. One is a democratically elected politician accountable to the electorate via an election; the other is in the position by a quirk of birth.

·The monarch is above the law and has crown immunity. The legal immunity conferred by the Royal Prerogative may extend to institutions and servants of the Crown. Cabinet ministers may try to use crown immunity to avoid the release of parliamentary documents as they are servants of the Crown. This remains an issue that lawyers discuss and analyse to this day – can ministers of the government use the Royal Prerogative to stop an investigation in to the work that they do on certain issues?

 

The Role of the Monarchy

Monarchy is the oldest form of government in the United Kingdom. In a monarchy, a king or queen is Head of State. The British monarchy is known as a constitutional monarchy. This means that, while The Sovereign is Head of State, the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament. Although the British Sovereign no longer has a political or executive role, he or she continues to play an important part in the life of the nation. As Head of State, The Monarch undertakes constitutional and representational duties which have developed over one thousand years of history. In addition to these State duties, The Monarch has a less formal role as 'Head of Nation'. The Sovereign acts as a focus for national identity, unity and pride; gives a sense of stability and continuity; officially recognises success and excellence; and supports the ideal of voluntary service. In all these roles The Sovereign is supported by members of their immediate family.

The Queen is Head of State in the United Kingdom. Her official title in the UK is “Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith”.

As a constitutional monarch, the Queen does not ‘rule’ the country, but fulfils important ceremonial and formal roles with respect to the Parliament of the UK, and devolved assemblies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

As Head of State, the Queen undertakes constitutional and representational duties which have developed over one thousand years of history. There are inward duties, with the Queen playing a part in State functions in Britain. Parliament must be opened, Orders in Council have to be approved, Acts of Parliament must be signed, and meetings with the Prime Minister must be held. There are also outward duties of State, when the Queen represents Britain to the rest of the world. For example, the Queen receives foreign ambassadors and high commissioners, entertains visiting Heads of State, and makes State visits overseas to other countries, in support of diplomatic and economic relations.

In addition to her constitutional duties, the Queen has an important role in public. A national figurehead, the Queen provides a focus for identity, offers recognition of achievement of all kinds, and supports the ideals of public and charitable work. Her Majesty acts a focus for national unity and pride by means of regular visits in the UK, her other realms, the Commonwealth and overseas destinations.

The Queen recognises excellence and achievement. This takes place in many ways: through royal visits which provide a ‘seal of approval’ to a charity or community, through the award of honours and prizes to outstanding individuals, and through messages sent to those celebrating special birthdays or wedding anniversaries.

The Queen and the royal family also play an important part in the public and voluntary sector. Through involvement with hundreds of charities, military units and other organisations, they promote the ideal of service to others.

 

Read the article discussing pros and cons of keeping monarchy in Britain. What is the author’s point of view? Do you agree with it? Make notes in two columns of the arguments for and against monarchy that are mentioned in the article.

The Observer, 4.04.2004

Split into two groups – one choosing to support the idea that British monarchy should be kept in future, the other maintaining the abolition idea. Surf the Internet sites and forums for monarchy debates, find out about the arguments that are used, the current percentage of those who support

Render the text in English.

29.04.2011

http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/uk/2011/04/110420_prince_william_next_king.shtml

Part 3

FEDERAL REPUBLIC IN THE USA

Vocabulary

 

authority; powers

to assume obligations; a pledge, to pledge

census

to collect/levy taxes; taxpayer

electoral/polling district; election constituency

employee insurance/social insurance; incapacity allowance/ disablement benefit; retirement/old age benefits

to enforce the law; to adopt and implement measures; to bring into force (for e.g. provisions of the convention)

to enshrine something in the document; provisions (of the document)

New Deal

Pledge of Allegiance

to take effect (for e.g. about an accord); to be implemented

Government: Executive Departments

• Department of Agriculture (USDA)
• Department of Commerce (DOC)
• Department of Defense (DOD)
• Department of Education (ED)
• Department of Energy (DOE)
• Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
• Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
• Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
• Department of Justice (DOJ)
• Department of Labor (DOL)
• Department of State (DOS)
• Department of the Interior (DOI)
• Department of the Treasury
• Department of Transportation (DOT)
• Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

Render the text in English.

http://www.bigpi.biysk.ru/aaa/BCE/government/system.htm

Политическая система США

Американское государство основано на разделении трех ветвей власти: законодательной, исполнительной и судебной. Согласно Конституции каждая из этих ветвей обладает определенной властью и компетенцией. Законодательная власть создает законы, исполнительная власть обеспечивает исполнение этих законов, а судебная власть интерпретирует законы и следит за тем, чтобы они соответствовали Конституции. Система сдержек и противовесов была создана для того, чтобы ни одна из трех ветвей власти не подавляла другие.

Политические партии

Сегодня в Соединенных Штатах существуют две ведущие политические партии. Демократическая — ведущая родословную от партии Томаса Джефферсона, основанной еще до 1800 года, и Республиканская, сложившаяся в 1850 году, в основном в северных и западных штатах, население которых призвало правительство обуздать проникновение рабовладения в новые штаты, принимаемые в союз.

Обе партии имеют большое число сторонников в самых широких слоях американского общества и представляют самый широкий диапазон политических воззрений.

Спектр этот в обеих партиях настолько широк, что отнюдь не все члены Конгресса, либо иные выборные представители, принадлежащие к одной и той же партии, во всем друг с другом согласны. Есть консервативные демократы, склонные разделять многие концепции республиканцев, есть и либеральные республиканцы, часто разделяющие концепции демократов. Подобные различия во взглядах нередко проявляются при голосовании по тому или иному закону. Очень часто ни демократы, ни республиканцы не голосуют так, как призывают лидеры их партий. Их взгляды, или взгляды людей, которых они представляют, имеют приоритет над взглядами партии.

Следует отметить, что членам Конгресса случается при голосовании занимать позиции, не пользующиеся популярностью у избирателя. Но они голосуют так, как велит совесть, либо руководствуются собственным пониманием того, что считают высшими интересами страны.

Республиканцы считают, что многие социальные программы чересчур дорого обходятся налогоплательщику, и что рост налогов, вызванный необходимостью финансировать их, ударяет по интересам всех. Они больше полагаются на частное предпринимательство и нередко обвиняют демократов в непомерных расходах на содержание государственного аппарата и проведения слишком большого количества законов, ограничивающих частную инициативу. Поэтому американцы склонны считать Республиканскую партию более консервативной.

Большинство современных американцев считает Демократическую партию более либеральной, подразумевая под этим, что демократы требуют от федерального правительства и властей штатов проведения более активной социальной политики, предоставления программ социального и экономического развития тем, кто в них нуждается: бедным, безработным и студентам, не имеющим средств на получение образования. Демократы завоевали такую репутацию еще в тридцатые годы, в период мирового экономического кризиса. Проводя политику «Нового курса», объявленную Президентом Франклином Рузвельтом, демократы выдвинули правительственные программы, обеспечивающие населению занятость на строительстве дамб, дорог и общественных сооружений. Правительства Демократической партии ввели и много иных программ, в частности программу социального страхования, обеспечивающую ежемесячное государственное пособие по старости и нетрудоспособности.

Законодательная власть

Законодательная власть комплектуется представителями, избираемыми от всех штатов, и единственная имеет право устанавливать федеральные законы, вводить и собирать федеральные налоги, объявлять войну и вводить в действие договоры с иностранными государствами. Законодательную власть олицетворяет Конгресс, состоящий из двух отделений, именуемых палатами:

• Палата представителей состоит из законодателей, избираемых на два года. Каждый член Палаты представляет округ своего родного штата. Количество округов в штате определяется на основе подсчета населения, проводимого каждые десять лет. Штаты с большей плотностью населения имеют больше округов и, соответственно, больше представителей, чем менее населенные штаты, некоторые из которых имеют в Палате лишь по одному представителю. В 1980-х годах Палата представителей Соединенных Штатов состоит из 435 представителей.

• В Сенат входят законодатели, избираемые сроком на шесть лет. От каждого штата, независимо от количества населения, избирается два сенатора. Таким образом обеспечивается равное представительство малых штатов в одной из палат Конгресса. График выборов в Сенат построен так, что каждые два года переизбирается лишь одна треть сенаторов, благодаря чему после каждых выборов в составе Сената остается известное количество опытных деятелей.

Главной обязанностью Конгресса является принятие законов, в том числе и законов о налогах, из которых оплачивается деятельность федерального правительства. Закон начинается с внесения законопроекта, именуемого «биллем». Его читают и изучают в комиссиях, комментируют и вносят в него поправки в той палате, где он был внесен. Затем проводится голосование. Если законопроект одобряется, он направляется в другую палату, где проходит аналогичную процедуру. Если палаты принимают различные редакции одного и того же законопроекта, представители обеих палат совместно работают в «согласительных» комиссиях. Группы, пытающиеся убедить конгрессменов голосовать «за» или «против» того или иного законопроекта, именуются «лоббистами». Пройдя обе палаты Конгресса, согласованный законопроект направляется на подпись Президенту. Только после того, как его подпишет Президент, законопроект становится законом.

Исполнительная власть

Главным должностным лицом Соединенных Штатов является Президент, избираемый вместе с Вице-президентом на четырехлетний срок. Согласно поправке к Конституции, принятой в 1951 году, Президент может избираться лишь на два срока. Кроме права наследования поста Президента, Конституция отводит Вице-президенту лишь функции председателя Сената, предоставляя ему право голосования в Сенате только лишь в случае разделения голосов поровну.

Президент наделен внушительными полномочиями, но и на них существуют ограничения. Как главное лицо, формирующее общественную политику, Президент часто направляет проекты законов Конгрессу. Президент имеет право вето на каждый принятый Конгрессом законопроект. Отменить наложенное Президентом вето могут лишь две трети голосов, поданных при голосовании и Сената, и Палаты представителей. Как руководитель своей политической партии Президент, имея легкий доступ к средствам массовой информации, обладает широкими возможностями влиять на общественное мнение касательно законов и проблем, которым придает первостепенное значение.

Президент уполномочен назначать федеральных судей по мере возникновения вакансий, в том числе и членов Верховного суда. Все назначения подобного рода подлежат утверждению в Сенате.

В пределах действия самой исполнительной власти Президент обладает широкими полномочиями по выпуску правил и инструкций, определяющих деятельность многочисленных министерств и ведомств федерального правительства. Он также является главнокомандующим вооруженными силами.

Президент назначает глав и старших должностных лиц органов исполнительной власти, однако большинство федеральных служащих отбирается через неполитическую систему государственной гражданской службы. Ведущие ведомства исполнительной власти возглавляются назначенными Президентом министрами (именуемыми «секретарями»), которые и образуют его кабинет. Каждое назначение должно утверждаться голосованием Сената. На сегодняшний день таких ключевых министерств существует тринадцать: государственный департамент, министерство финансов, министерство обороны, министерство юстиции, министерство внутренних дел, министерство сельского хозяйства, министерство торговли, министерство труда, министерство здравоохранения и гуманитарных служб, министерство жилищного и городского развития, министерство транспорта, министерство энергетики и министерство просвещения.

Согласно Конституции, Президент является главным должностным лицом, несущим ответственность за взаимоотношения с иностранными государствами. Президент назначает послов и иных официальных лиц, подлежащих утверждению в Сенате, совместно с государственным секретарем формулирует и направляет внешнюю политику США. Президент часто представляет Соединенные Штаты за рубежом в консультациях с другими главами государств, а также через подчиненных ему должностных лиц ведет переговоры о заключении соглашений с иностранными государствами, которые вступают в действие после ратификации в Сенате двумя третями голосов. Президент может также заключать с иностранными государствами менее формальные «исполнительные соглашения», которые ратификации в Сенате не подлежат.

Судебная власть

Судебная власть возглавляется Верховным судом — единственным судом страны, создание которого особо оговорено Конституцией. Кроме того, Конгресс учредил одиннадцать федеральных апелляционных судов и девяносто один подчиненный им федеральный окружной суд. Федеральные судьи назначаются пожизненно и могут быть смещены с должности лишь путем импичмента и суда Конгрессом.

Федеральной юрисдикции подлежат все дела, подпадающие под действие Конституции, законов и договоров Соединенных Штатов, законов мореплавания, а также дела, затрагивающие иностранных граждан и правительства и вопросы, в которых одной из сторон является само федеральное правительство. Дела, подпадающие под юрисдикцию отдельных штатов, как правило, федеральными судами не рассматриваются.

Сегодня в Верховный суд входят председатель и восемь членов. За незначительными исключениями, все дела поступают на рассмотрение Верховного суда только путем апелляции из нижестоящих судов — федеральных, или судов штатов. Большинство подобных дел связано с разногласиями в интерпретации законов и уложений. В этом отношении важнейшая функция Верховного суда состоит в определении конституционной правомочности деятельности законодательной и исполнительной власти. Право подобного юридического контроля было определено не Конституцией, но, скорее, самим Верховным судом в его анализе собственной конституционной роли, произведенном при разборе дела «Марбери против Мэдисона» в 1803 году, послужившим отправной точкой в этом аспекте деятельности.

 

UNIT 2

ELECTIONS

Part 1

ELECTORAL SYSTEMS

Vocabulary

suffrage, universal suffrage; the right to vote; franchise; expansion of the franchise

electoral systems: majority election system/ first-past-the-post system/ winner-takes-all system; (party-list) proportional representation system

constituency

to win a mandate; to elect, to be elected; to return smb. to parliament

to vote, to go to the polls

two-party system; multi-party system

to comply with the law

electoral fraud; corrupt and illegal practices; to bribe voters; libel; ballot-box stuffing; to fix/ rig an election; gerrymander

Voting Systems

 

There are basically two systems in parliamentary elections,

- the Majority Election System

- the Proportional Representation System.

Both systems do have advantages and shortcomings and there is no generally accepted preference. Two important points to be considered are equal and just influence of every vote on the electoral result and stability of the political system.

Majority Election System

With the majority election system, only one member of parliament is to be elected per constituency [area and group of voters living therein that is taken as a unit in the election process].

Basic Idea

The most qualified personality shall be selected to represent the constituency.

Characteristics, Pros and Cons

With the majority election system, small parties have no chance to win a mandate unless there are some constituencies with a population having political views differing much from those in the rest of the country. With the size constituencies in big nations do have (some 100,000 voters) this is rather unlikely. Therefore the majority election system will inevitably lead to parties uniting or building blocks (tight alliances) until only two major players remain on the political scene. So voters are forced to select between the candidates of two big parties basically. While this tends to create a stable parliamentary majority for the government it is not likely to represent a pluralistic modern society adequately.

Supporters of a minority party might feel not being represented by the member of parliament rooted in their region because he or she represents the other party and other political concepts.

In a big nation, one member of parliament is going to represent some 100,000 inhabitants. Evidently these people do not live in towns of exactly this size. To assign fairly equal numbers of inhabitants to every constituency, several villages and small towns must be grouped to form a constituency while large cities must be divided into several constituencies. There is no "natural", evident rule of assignment.

In the past years it has repeatedly been reported that minor changes in the definition of constituencies were deliberately planned by governments of several countries (U.K., France and others) to ensure that their party could win a few mandates in a situation where government and opposition party have almost the same strength.

The trick herein is the following: if there is a constituency with a solid majority for the government party, subtract a few towns voting overwhelmingly for the government and add them to a neighboring constituency where the government party just needs a few percent more of the votes to win the election and exchange these towns for a few towns known to be voting for the opposition – so the government's party will win both seats.

In principle, this kind of manipulation is just as much electoral fraud as counting some votes twice or having some votes uncounted. The problem is: the existing old borders of a constituency might have been created by the same kind of manipulation by a former government and it is almost impossible to find a really neutral solution.

While the majority election system seems to be straightforward and simple at first glance, it leads to rather complex decisions that are not transparent to voters. This is definitely not a basis to create trust in democracy.

Proportional Representation System

With the proportional representation system several members of parliament are to be elected per constituency. Basically every political party presents a list of candidates and voters can select a list, that is they vote for a political party. Parties are assigned parliamentary seats proportionally to the number of votes they get.

Basic Idea

Political parties play a key role in creating political solutions (even in a majority election system). A reasonable number of competing parties will create more and better ideas while just two big parties (resulting from the majority election system) tend to be at a deadlock with inflexible positions.

Characteristics, Pros and Cons

With several parties there is more choice and voters are more likely to find a party that does represent their major political convictions than would be possible in a two-party system.

Supporters of a small party are likely to be represented by at least one Member of Parliament rooted in their region and sharing their political views and convictions.

The size of constituencies is bigger and there are less possibilities to manipulate their borders than with the majority election system. Usually the borders of the constituencies are fixed by historical considerations (provinces, federal states, counties etc.). As several seats are assigned to parties proportionally to votes even within a constituency, the borders of a constituency are not as relevant to the election result as in a majority election system.

With an increased number of represented parties a majority for a single party becomes less probable. If the government must be based on too many small parties they may disagree when new issues emerge. This may become a danger to political stability and cause anticipated elections absorbing the attention of politicians. If instability gets notorious in a country, the state as a whole will just not be able to perform the tasks it should.

Small parties may also abuse their position to get support for special interests (for examples subsidies for institutions related to the party) in exchange for support for the government policy. This is nothing less than a form of corruption.

In most countries with proportional elections the parties decide who will represent them in parliament. There may be a difference between the party hierarchy deciding on the top places on the party's list of candidates and the voters’ preferences.

In some countries, there are additional rules to make sure that voters may have some influence which candidates will represent them.

The most sophisticated system of this kind has been established in Switzerland: Voters may replace candidates on a party list by other candidates (even from a different party) and favorited candidates may appear twice on a list (while the total number of candidates on a list may not exceed the number of seats, of course). For those who think this is too complicated for them there is always the possibility to use an unchanged party list. This way, a major drawback of the proportional election system is eliminated while preserving the obvious advantages of proportional representation.

How to steal an election

Electoral fraudsters have become more cunning, but dirty politics is a bigger worry

 

It was another good day for North Korea's Workers' Party. On July 24th 2011, amid music and gongs, the late Kim Jong Il shuffled past queuing throngs to cast his vote in the country's local elections. Like everyone else, he voted for the ruling party; its 28,116 candidates were all elected unopposed on a 99.97% turnout.

Though such extreme cases are confined to the handful of remaining workers' paradises, crude ballot-rigging is far from extinct. Alyaksandr Lukashenka, the Belarusian autocrat, has even admitted it publicly – he claimed he had ordered the result of the 2006 presidential election to be tweaked downwards in order to avoid an embarrassingly large majority. Of the 70-odd states holding national elections in 2012, Freedom House, a lobby, counts only 40 as full “electoral democracies”.

For the most part, however, technology and the presence of outside observers is complicating the election-rigging business, requiring dodgy politicians to work harder and more cleverly. Most manipulators make only sparing use of blatant election-day frauds, says Sarah Birch of the University of Essex. She compared observer reports of 136 elections held between 1995 and 2006 and found that a more frequent tactic is to alter election laws, often as a means of deterring opposition candidates or gerrymandering unlosable constituencies. (Youssou N'Dour, a famous musician who hoped to stand in Senegal's presidential election on February 26th, was struck from the ballot on a technicality.)

Also more common are attempts to influence the genuine choices of voters –frequently through vote-buying, using state resources in campaigning, and exploiting partisan media. Such subterfuge is harder to detect and less likely to enrage a mob. Public-spirited voters with smartphones can photograph irregularities at polling stations, but not the abuse of campaign-financing rules. “People don't often take to the streets to protest against media bias,” says Ms Birch.

Some fraud masquerades as incompetence. Judith Kelley at Duke University crunched American government reports on more than 1,000 elections held between 1980 and 2004. The most blatant forms of cheating were recorded, on average, in about 40% of polls, but the biggest rise in complaints concerned electoral administration. Too few voting slips, patchy voter lists, and long queues at polling stations distort elections as surely as burnt ballot boxes and bribes. Yet election observers are likely to withhold their worst scoldings if the line between cock-up and corruption is unclear.

Nearly 80% of elections come under scrutiny from at least some sort of international observers, up from less than 30% in 1989, says Susan Hyde of Yale University (see chart). Domestic election observers are also getting more numerous and more professional. Such local monitors are better placed to record pre-election manipulations than small groups from overseas. And more observers on election day (especially those toting smartphones and tablets) make possible more comprehensive fraud-detection techniques, including the “ quick count ” – an effective but resource-intensive practice which compares results declared at polling stations with those tabulated centrally by election officials.

Blinding the watchers

Now the monitors themselves have become a target for election-riggers. They may face intimidation, sabotage (doors being glued shut, for example, in Russia) or manipulation. In 2007 the Kazakh embassy in Washington tried to pack a mission from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, an international monitoring outfit, with sympathetic staff.

Another dodge is to invite more than one mission. Observers disagree about a third of the time, Ms Kelley says, and some bodies are consistently more lenient than others. Russia, Kenya and Zimbabwe have all exploited these differences. Monitors sent by the Commonwealth of Independent States (a post-Soviet talking shop based in Minsk) have verified scores of elections, including those in Ukraine and Belarus, which were condemned by more established institutions. Credible outfits may boycott the worst-run elections, but such aloofness avails little if less reputable groups attend in their place.

Researchers disinclined or unable to loiter in polling stations are increasingly drawn to statistical means of detecting fraud. A principle now known as Benford's law (though discovered by an autodidact called Simon Newcomb) shows that naturally occurring sets of numbers, such as returns from polling stations, have distinctive patterns that made-up numbers almost never match. Worried vote-riggers may be driven to commission a countermeasure from a friendly mathematician.

With so many possibilities for subtle rigging, it may seem odd that the crude stuff remains so popular. Perhaps election-rigging is a hallmark of ill-run political systems, where corrupt local officials instinctively revert to the malpractice that comes naturally. Or perhaps, since the clever stuff can go wrong, ballot-stuffing is a safety valve. Politicians in shoddy democracies are learning what leaders in real ones have long known – you can fool only some of the people, and only some of the time.

 

Part 2

Vocabulary

 

to convene/ to dissolve parliament; dissolution of Parliament; parliamentary term; provisions for parliament to be dissolved and an early election to be held; vote of no confidence

general elections; to hold general elections; to call an election; by-elections / pre-term election / off-year election; run-off election; elections to devolved parliaments and assemblies, elections to the European Parliament, local elections

Electoral Commission; electoral register; Returning Officers; Electoral Registration Officers

annual canvass; canvass forms that are sent to all households; election campaign, to launch a campaign

be eligible to vote; be qualified to vote; voter; electorate; to cast one’s vote; to vote in person; postal vote, postal ballot paper; proxy vote

poll card; polling station; polling day/ election day; presiding officer, poll clerk, poll watchers; polling agents appointed by candidates

ballot paper; ballot box; (polling/voting) booth; secret ballot system; maintain the secrecy of the vote; to mark the ballot paper (If the ballot paper has been spoilt, the presiding officer/poll clerk can issue a new one after the old ballot paper is cancelled);

to seal the slot at the top of the ballot box; the ballot box is transported by the presiding officer to the central counting location; to count votes; to declare the results

high/low turnout; voter apathy

seat; safe seats; to win a majority of seats; a seat falls vacant

simple majority; overwhelming majority; absolute majority

to remain in office, to engage in a major or minor reshuffle of ministers; to dismiss the incumbent Prime Minister, to form a new government; coalition government, coalition deal; suspended parliament

candidate; Member of Parliament (MP); Chief Whip;

Reform Act 1832 (the Great Reform Act) – abolishing rotten boroughs

House of Lords: hereditary peers; life peers; Lords Spiritual, Lords Temporal

2.2 Read the texts about elections in Britain and discuss the following issues:

· What are pros and cons of the fact that the general election can be called by the prime minister before the end of the five years term? How can this be used by the governing party to maximise political advantage?

· Why can the outcome of a by-election be