Discuss the view that prime ministerial and presidential forms of government are essentially

similar. [50]

Introduction:
Prime ministerial and presidential forms of government are inherently different given the
constitutional arrangements which outline their powers. The fusion of powers in the UK makes
the government distinctly different from that of the US, where the separation of powers creates a
much less powerful executive. In recent times, the premiership has been viewed as presidential,
but this is only true to an extent. There are also other similarities between the forms of
government.
Prime ministerial and presidential forms of government are not similar due to their
respective formal powers and how they are appointed.
In the UK, the fusion of powers enables the PM to have greater influence on the legislature,
especially given that they are leader of a political party. Party leaders are elected, which
legitimises and strengthens their authority. Contrasts with the president, who is not the leader of
their party.
As first among equals within cabinet, he is able to have significant control over legislation, yet
must be supported by the majority of his ministers. He sets the agenda for policy, and can carry
this out through gaining simple majorities in the House of Commons, whereas the US codified
constitution means that the president needs a supermajority in order to make an amendment.
For example: Marriage Act 2013 legalised same sex marriage in the UK, whereas Obama would
find it difficult to get this passed, given the federal-state relationship. It took the SC decision
Obergefell v. Hodges to legalise gay marriage across all 50 states. Cameron put same sex
marriage high up in his agenda as part of his campaign on compassionate conservatism,
demonstrates the influence of the PM on policy.
In the US, the separation of powers was designed by the founding fathers, with an underlying
system of checks and balances entrenched in the Constitution, to ensure no one individual had
significant power. In comparison, the British government is arguably dominated by the prime
minister and his cabinet, due to the fusion of powers.
Presidential elections held - separation of powers means that there can be divided government,
as is currently the case. Greatly affects government as policy is even harder to agree on.
The president has several enumerated powers, such as his role as commander-in-chief, the
advisory role of cabinet, and the power to veto legislation he does not approve of. However, the
president is limited by the system of checks and balances. He must rely largely on his power to
persuade when interacting with Congress.

For example, through the State of the Union Address the president can propose legislation and
outline a legislative agenda, but Congress has no obligation to follow his recommendations.
This contrasts with the prime ministerial form of government, where the fusion of powers means
that the PM can access the whips, which he can use to ensure MPs follow the party line.
Senate confirms treaties and appointments - check on presidential power.
UK - Queen used to appoint Law Lords based on PMs recommendations, Constitutional
Reform Act (2005) ended this. Supreme Court justices now appointed after being recommended
by the Judicial Appointments Commission. Even so, PM has power of patronage, can appoint
ministers, peers, diplomats etc.
HOWEVER - Coalition government limited PMs power, and gave backbenchers opportunities to
rebel. Following the 2015 general election, Cameron has a single-digit majority in HofC, versus
Blairs 179 seat majority in 1997. This will impact his government, as he must ensure his MPs
are willing to toe the party line. Even a sizeable majority does not guarantee success, for
example Blair was defeated on the war in Iraq, university tuition fees and foundation hospitals in
his second term.
The position of Cabinet within UK and US government is distinctly different.
UK Cabinets role is to agree on and support policy. They consider key decisions, with the prime
minister ultimately deciding. Work with the prime minister much more closely than the US
cabinet. For example, the UK Cabinet meet on a weekly basis, whereas the US Cabinet meets
relatively infrequently.
They come from the same party as the prime minister, which means they must adhere to party
lines, or resign.
May not be experts in their area of policy, but will have political experience - understand how
policy making works. They set the agenda for the legislature (Parliament). Collective
responsibility unites them.
e.g. Clare Short (Blair) resigned because of Iraq
The US Cabinet is made up of experts from a range of different backgrounds. They do not
always have political experience, although some may be former members of Congress. Merely
an advisory role, president is not required to listen to them. Increased use of policy czars
undermines the role of Cabinet, who have become relatively unimportant as a result.
Comparable to special advisers competing with Cabinet ministers in the UK.
No collective responsibility in the US, little to no sense of unity - Cabinet discussions are
dominated by a few voices rather than everyone due to the members specialist nature.
Both styles of government share similarities.

Blairs premiership was characterised by his presidential style. Cabinet meetings were short
under Blair, and he dominated decision making. Blair oversaw the creation of the Prime
Ministers Strategy Unit (2002-2010), which provided in-depth strategy advice and policy
analysis. Rise of spin in UK politics - Blair and Alastair Campbell
e.g. few senior ministers were consulted on Blair and Browns decision to give operational
independence to Bank of England in 1997
There are similarities between the UKs Civil Service and the US Federal Bureaucracy. Both
help the government develop and implement policy, while remaining politically neutral.
The PM can make use of 10 Downing Street (Prime Ministers Office), while the president can
use EXOP, although this is arguably much more influential than the PMs Office.
Following 9/11, foreign policy powers have greatly expanded for the PM/president. Passage of
AUMF Act (2011) greatly enhanced Bushs role as Commander-in-Chief, has continued over to
Obama administration over fight against ISIS. Blairs decision to invade Iraq was highly
controversial, but was carried out anyway.
Conclusion
Both presidential and prime ministerial forms of government share some similarities, but are
different in key areas, such as the relationship between the executive and the legislature, the
role of Cabinet and the PM/presidents powers.
Much better thank you! Well done. I like the knowledge you are showing, check you prove the
depth of your understanding and check you have equal balance between the two nations. Aim
for a more analytical conclusion.