The comparison of the US President and the British Prime Minister appears from the onset, to provide some interesting political differences. In recent years, the public has become acutely aware of the potential, and arguably the need, for personal leadership in the midst of its political system. This represents a major change in perceptions and values, for the form of government, which has traditionally been distinguished by its collegiate and impersonal nature. The British system is based upon the constitutional doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, the political principle of a representative democracy drawn from a mass electorate, and on an operational ethos of party loyalty, collective cabinet responsibility and a professional civil service. The American presidency is a topic that attracts both widespread and intense interest. As a respective position of the political system, it represents a mainstream branch of a constitutional system with the support of a judicial b!

ranch and a legislative branch. Yet these attractions may have inhibiting effects on the scientific and theoretical development of the subfie

erous other setbacks which limit their scrutinizing powers, such as time restrictions and the lack of an independent inquiry into their reports (this is left to the government to act upon). The President faces much more intense scrutiny from both Standing and Select Committees since they have a wider remit to evidence due to their extensive finance and freedom of information laws, added to this is the apparent lack of government secrecy on a scale such as that displayed in Britain. The investigations carried out by such bodies often gain public attention and mass media coverage, prominent examples being the Watergate Committee of 1974 which had mass following and demonstrated the power of such committees, by subpoenaing vital evidence which led to the resignation of Richard Nixon. Due to the direct link between the Prime Minister and the legislature, it may appear that he would face much more intense scrutiny than the President, as he has to face the Commons in debates and at !

e Agreements have been used instead of Treaties so that Senate's approval is not required. They have also been used to send troops abroad, an example being the Grenada and Panama situations of the 1980's, when the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and the Constitution were successfully sidestepped. The British Prime Minister cannot expect to hold so much foreign influence, as the question of foreign policy appears to spark the interest of Parliament, shown by the quality of debates on foreign issues. The Prime Minister does not have the ability to use Executive powers in this area either, and he does not hold the position of Head of State. It would appear therefore that both the President and Prime Minister have extensive powers in legislating, both having the most control within their respective systems. The Prime Minister though, appears to have the most influence over legislation, when compared to the President, as his dominance over the legislature is much more secure and face!

f the pocket veto has also become an effective weapon of the president in controlling legislation, since it can not be overturned and needs not be explained, and moreover, can be used a bargaining counter with Congress to ensure success for Presidential legislation. It would appear that the constitution has limited the power of the President and strengthened Congressional power, but when looked at more closely, the President has become known as the 'Chief Legislator', according to Johnson, for his extensive use of the State of the Union address to forward his proposals for legislation and make it known to Congress, his intentions for the year, and the fact that he passes more legislation than Congress. We may also consider the use of Executive Powers by the President as a further way in which he can bypass Congress, and exert his law-making powers. The extensive use of such powers in Foreign Affairs have been a significant element of the Presidency in recent years, as Executiv!

ld. Perhaps more than any other subfield, the issues of the conduct of the president and the prime minister seem stuck in a temporal context that constrains larger generalizations or inquiries. The attention of this topic tends to focus on that of the normative judgments with empirical descriptions of behavior. This research will entail a

tive party in the legislature is of great significance in determining which office, confers the most power. The British Prime Minister, as shown by past examples, usually holds substantial power over the party machine from which their power originates, and position depends on. The absence of a clear separation of powers in the British system gives the British Prime Minister the position of, head of the majority party in parliament. Due to such a strong link between the Prime Minister and his party he can often expect loyalty as a matter of course when forwarding legislation. The President can not though, expect such favorable treatment from his party, as no

Some common words found in the essay are:
Prime Minister, Policy Committees, Senators Representatives, Select Committees, November Bush, President Commons, Prime Ministers, prime minister, Kenned Bush, Powers' Executive, British MPs, british prime minister, british prime, party loyalty, minister appears, domestic politics, appear president, political system, position head, party president, power british, prime minister appears, president british prime, president prime minister, prime minister position,
Approximate Word count = 3186
Approximate Pages = 13 (250 words per page double spaced)