We have now finished looking at the differences between the British parliamentary model and American Republicanism. While there are similarities in these forms of government, there are also glaring differences. The main contrast between these two systems can be seen in how power is distributed within the basic structure. In Canada, power is highly centralized. The executive (the Prime Minister and the cabinet) work as part of the legislative branch. Indeed, they are in full control of the legislative agenda. In the United States, there is great diffusion of power between the legislative and executive branches. This was referred to by the framers as a "system of checks and balances". In other words, Americans so distrust the abuse of government power that they deliberately designed their system to "starve" each of the moving parts of the system, forcing the entirety to work together or suffer "gridlock" (the inability to move forward on legislation). As well, in the United States, the President and the cabinet (the executive) are not part of the legislative branch at all. However, the President does have the power of veto. Other differences in the systems:
•There is more flexibility for individual parliamentarians in the American system to "go their own way" -- Cabinet solidarity vs. bipartisanship
•Passing legislation is less complicated in Canada and easier to do (see the charts).
•Government can be held more directly responsible in the Canadian system. The president needs the help of the House and the Senate to get things done.
See the sites below to review how a bill becomes a law in the United States. The simple chart is interactive and allows you to click on it for more detailed information. The second site takes you to a flow chart for the whole process.
http://www.cybertelecom.org/images/howlaw.gif
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/law.gif
