Presidential power is more significant than prime ministerial power. The following discussion will support the argument. The house of the commons complained frequently of being sidelined by President Bush during the fight against terrorism. During this period, Blair was accused of developing presidential powers. This shows that the president had powers to make decisions without involving the house of the commons. The fact that the president is using the title president gives him/her enormous power and authority being the main figurehead in the massive American political structure. When Clinton moved to impeachment process because of Lewinsky scandal, it was because of what he did as a person and not as a president. This show that whatever one did as a president is not going to affect him as an individual showing the powers of being a president (Washington).
The president has the power of veto over the legislation made by congress. He/she must sign the legislation before becoming law. Thus, the only effective formal power possessed by the President is that of veto. Although it is subject to overturn by two-third majority of both Houses, it is a very effective power in legislating. Clinton, for instance, used 17 vetoes between 1993 and 97 with a great success, with none being overturned. Bush too, had a great success in using veto, he was defeated only once from 1988 to 1993. In foreign policy, the president has more powers compared to the Prime Minister. The international status of America surpasses that of Britain. Evidence exists to prove that US leaders are more welcomed in foreign countries than Britain counterparts. Only America has the influence and power to gather necessary support in United Nations for her foreign policy. The Prime Minister does not have the ability to use Executive powers, and he does not hold the position of Head of State. This shows that the Prime minister is limited as compared to the President (Sullivan, 2006).
British Prime minister does not have similar international standings as the president. In the crisis that involved Iraq, G W Bush the then American president was the driving force behind the move against leadership in Baghdad. Tony Blair the then British Prime Minister was seen as just clinging on the coat tails of Bush since Blair was not having full powers but instead depends on those of Bush. Britain does not have international powers to influence policies. Her military is weak compared to that of America. Because of such a position, The Prime minister cannot drive International agenda while US president can. The power of US president abroad is therefore greater than that of British Prime Minister (HistoryLearningSite.co.uk) . Barak Obama's speech, prior to being elected as US president in 2008 support the idea that president is more powerful than the prime minister is. He suggested that Blair and Britain was let down by the Bush administration and he (Obama) was ready to recalibrate the relationship so that the United Kingdom can work with America as a full partner (New York Times). Critical analysis of this statement show that UK depends on America. There has been constant support by British Prime ministers to the Us Presidents in most of their plans. These supports must be with an intension to get favor from the Americans presidents, which is an indication that presidents are more powerful that prime ministers (HistoryLearningSite.co.uk).
The president holds the power of being supreme decision maker when consulting cabinet. He/she may ignore the views of the cabinet. Presidents Bush and Kennedy favored this policy. They used to formalize meetings but paid little attention to the cabinets views. The American President may upon his/her wishes use alternative sources of information instead of relying on his cabinet. These sources include Independent Executive agencies or EXOP contained within the Bureaucracy. This increases the power of president in providing and analyzing vital information. While the Prime Minister must maintain the support of the legislature, the president can govern without their support. This shows that the presidents are more powerful than the prime minister (Sullivan 2006) is.
On the other hand, the prime minister can be seen as more significant than the president can. The following discussion supports the argument. Because he is the head of government and led the majority party, he combines executive and legislative powers amounting to immense accretion of power. The powers include the right dissolve parliament, to appoint ministers, to be in charge of armed forces and security services, to summon and chair cabinet meetings, to negotiate treaties as well as other diplomatic agreements. Unlike other ministers, the prime minister is not tied up to a particular department and therefore co-ordinate government policy across board (whitehouse.gov).
The powers of president in America are limited by the constitution. While the president has many things that he/she can do, there are many things that he/she cannot do as well. While the house of commons does not formulate policy but instead discuss the proposed legislation and on them, Congress has the powers, the likes of which are not in Great Britain. Senate has the power to remove the president and congress has the power to reject a budget proposed by the president (HistoryLearningSite.co.uk). This limits the powers of the president. The Chancellor's budget in Britain is introduced no matter what Parliament thinks. The president is not removed by the party in power but by a party revolt (New York Times).
In domestic politics, the power of president is questionable. Although the president selects his cabinet, the senate has to ratify it. The president may therefore be forced to work with people that he did not initially select as cabinet members. These restrictions are not applicable to the Prime minister. He/she is free to select cabinet members that he/she likes and can remove them in case they fail. He/she need no consultation over this. The president is not heading his party. On the other hand, the British Prime Minister is also a Member of Parliament and the head of his party. He therefore commands huge respect from the party and drives the policies of the party. Being the leader of parliamentary majority, it is highly probable that policies presented by the Prime Minister will become actual policy and law (HistoryLearningSite.co.uk).
The British Prime Minister has more legislative power compared to the President because he/she has much control over the working of standing committees responsible for considering and amending legislation (HistoryLearningSite.co.uk). He/she can therefore influence the implementation of legislation to favor him/her. This places the prime minister in a more powerful position than the president (whitehouse.gov).
References List
Barrington, L, 2012. Comparative Politics: Structures and Choices. 2nd ed. NY: Cengage Learning.
Kavanagh, D, 2008. Powers Behind the Prime Minister. 1st ed. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Limited.
Matthew, A. C, 2007. Presidential Power: Unchecked and Unbalanced. 1st ed. New York: Norton.
Neustadt, E. R, 1991. Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents: The Politics of Leadership from Roosevelt to Reagan. 1st ed. New York: Free Press.
Sullivan , J, 2006. The President, the Pope, And the Prime Minister: Three Who Changed the World. New York: Regnery Publishing.
