Finest governmental system?

In the opening of the film 'Overview of America', by the John Birch Society, a rather remarkable claim is made. The film stated that the United States has developed 'the finest governmental system ever devised by man'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTQQJOEn9yI

This is an extraordinary claim as most democracies in the world have a parliamentary system which is widely regarded as giving better systemic accountability and being more democratic than a presidential republic in the styles of the US.

Separating the Head of Government and Head of State which occurs in parliamentary system makes the executive directly accountable to the people's representatives.

The democracy index lists countries in order of freedom and democracy:
http://a330.g.akamai.net/7/330/25828/20081021185552/graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Demo...

In the 2008 list, 18 out of the top 20 countries have parliamentary system and only one (the United States) has a presidential system of government. At the other end of the scale however, 5 out of the 10 least free and democratic countries have a presidential system and none have a parliamentary system.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• parliamentary system
• presidential system

[cwa1984]

This video is useless first off no country on earth practices pure direct democracy. Only Switzerland and the U.S. (state and local level) really get into using direct democracy often. Also the video fails to even to define democracy which is simply rule of the people. Democracy does not necessarily mean civil liberties and human rights. Democracy in purest form is essentially mob rule "tyranny of the majority". Also not all Presidential and parliamentary systems are created equal.

[cwa1984]

@SchoolThought That's relatively easy once you look at the whole picture instead of just relying on the government system the country uses. Latin American countries use a presidential system but they tend not to respect the judicial system making those countries prone to dictatorship and strong man rule by their leaders. They also had and still do major racial divides between native americans, europeans, and african slaves that made governoring those countries tremendously difficult as well.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@cwa1984

The Supreme Court is not useless as parliament must accept their rulings. Also, what's wrong with having sovereignty reside in Parliament (the prime part of which is elected by and made up of the people)?

The governing parties cannot pass whatever legislation they want, they must maintain the support of their own MPs and Peers (most of which are not part of the government).

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@cwa1984

Not true, most of the world's democracies use the Parliamentary systems, modelled after the British system.

The US system is dangerous because it creates a powerful executive which is effectively unaccountable to the legislature. This makes military coups more likely as that's pretty much the only way to remove an authoritarian president.

[cwa1984]

@Medeasbiggestfan No they are not many constraints since paraliament has sovereignty in the UK making your somewhat version of a supreme court useless. Also the opposition parties don't even show up to vote since its a waste of time and effort since the ruling party has a majority and can pass whatever legislation they want. This is considered one of the major drawbacks of a paraliamentary system as well.

[cwa1984]

@Medeasbiggestfan How is the US constitution dangerous exactly? Since almost all countries model their constitutions off the U.S. Constitution. Also the framers compromised on the U.S. Constitution after the failure of the articles of confederation and had different views on how the country should be ran.  So saying the U.S. Constitution didn't work as they agreed upon makes no sense since they disagreed throughout the process of making it and its meaning.

[SchoolThought]

@cwa1984 Don't you think a country's political system at least play a big part in it's development? Let's play devil's advocate and examine how well civil liberties and human rights are protected and maintained in the US, a Presidential system and a developed nation. Since you think you're more knowledgeable in this, explain why, according to both the HDI and the Democracy index, that the US and South Korea are the only nations with a Presidential system that are fully developed and democratic.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@cwa1984

We have a Supreme Court in the UK, and a constitution (although not codified). The government can't do whatever it wants, there are many constraints.

In a parliamentary democracy, the parties in the government have received more votes from the people than the other parties, so they should have the right to govern. In a democracy, the views of the minority are respected, but the views of the majority are implemented.

The opposition parties in parliament hold the government to account.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@cwa1984

New Zealand doesn't have a codified constitution either. Also, we've had a codified English Bill of Rights since 1689 (100 years before the US Bill).

I didn't say a codified Constitution is a bad thing, I said the US Constitution is very dangerous (as can be shown in other countries which have used it as a template for their own constitutions). I'm sure the framers did disagree, but they came to a consensus in the US Constitution, which then didn't work in the way they'd agreed upon.

[cwa1984]

@Medeasbiggestfan Care to elaborate? Since the framers where not a homogenuis hive mind and disagreed constantly drafting the U.S. Constitution I find your comment here to be either from lack of knowledge or flat out lying. Also if a codified constitution is such a dangerous document why is it that the UK and Israel or the only two countries without them? Another good question here is why has the idea of a codified English Bill of rights and Constitution gaining popularity in the UK?

[cwa1984]

@Medeasbiggestfan Let's be honest here in a parliamentary system of government the party in charge doesn't give a fuck what the party not in charge wants. Since they are in power and can do what they please without any restraint unless they have a constitution and some kind of supreme court. In a paraliamentary government the elected officials in the party or parties who aren't in power don't even show up most of the time to paraliament since its a waste of time.