The Dominion of America: Why the US Needs a Non-Executive Head of State

Videos

George Bush on Voting - Spoof by Will Ferrell

see larger video

sourced by MOR

• 

  Created by MOR | add comment

• 

  Created by MOR | add comment

• 

  Created by MOR | add comment

• 

  Created by MOR | add comment

• 

  Created by MOR | add comment

• 

  Created by MOR | add comment

• 

  Created by MOR | add comment

• 

  Created by MOR | add comment

Now I know from the get-go this is not going to be very popular
among the 'Mericans' out there but I truly believe our system of
government to be too antiquated to work properly.

To celebrate Independence Day, I came across a column written in the Guardian by Ian Williams titled: George III or George W?.



Basically, Williams makes the case that many of the things the founding
father's complained about in regard to King George III, are the same
things that George W is guilty of. Not much has changed.



This comes as no suprise to me as the founding fathers modeled the
office of president of the US on the 18th century British monarchy. While
the UK, Canada, NZ, Australia and Ireland are modeled on the powerless
role of the British crown from the 19th century -- where the power of
the executive is vested in the leader of the majority party of the
lower house -- a far more democratic -- and I may add -- accountable
form of government.



A head of state should be a likable unifier with no real powers. The
problem with the US system is that the head of government (the one with
the power) is combined with the head of state to create an aura of
deference that does not exist with prime ministers -- who are seen as
servants of the people.



I will never forget some people I saw interviewed on TV before the Iraq
invasion saying: "Well, I am not sure if I agree with Bush but he is MY
president, so he has my support." That kind of deference was also seen
among the media when you compare the way they treated Bush versus how they
treated Blair before the invasion.


That deference of the US president extends to the lack of real questioning any head of government needs to justify policy to the country. Imagine Mr. Bush being questioned once a week like the PMs of most parliamentary systems. He couldn't do it.

A parliamentary system is more accountable as heads of departments are
members of parliament not cronies to the head of state -- having all
been voted in by the people.


If the US was a parliamentary system, George Bush would be long gone -- kicked out by his party. Like Blair, and Thatcher before him, leaders go when they are too unpopular to keep around.

Most industrialised countries are run on parliamentary principles where
the power of the executive is separate from the position of head of
state. Some examples: UK, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Canada,
NZ, Australia, Japan, Ireland, Denmark, Israel, Sweden, and Norway.
They are all prosperous free countries with accountable heads of
government and flowing democracy. 



Thomas Jefferson thought the constitution should be rewritten every generation...maybe that time has come?