michael sylvester wrote:
>
>
> British parliamentary debates and proceedings must be the most 
> uncivilized affair on the planet.
> Members of parliament disrupt,laugh,boo and throw all types of verbal 
> assaults at the Premier
> and cabinet ministers.It continues outside of the building where 
> members of parliament can be pied and egged.

Good question. The answer is deeply historical. Prime ministers are not 
presidents. Traditionally they were just the leading members of 
governments and, more importantly, of cabinets. Each minister had 
primary responsibility for his portfolio (war, treasure, home, etc.) 
and, while they all worked together with the Prime Minister, they did 
not work "for" him in quite the way that an (unelected) "Secretary" in 
the US works "for"the President. (You may recall that Margaret Thatcher 
was thrown out *not* by a vote of the opposition, but by a vote of her 
own Tory caucus.) That old division-of-labor system among cabinet 
ministers has deteriorated over the years, and one of the primary 
complaints that is heard in countries using the Westminister (e.g., UK) 
model of Parliament is that they are becoming "too presidential." (Think 
of the way Blair acted, or Chretien in Canada, or Howard in Australia -- 
as though they alone ran the place, promoting and demoting ministers on 
the basis of personal loyalty rather than in  an effort to maintain 
representation of various factions within the party.) Still, because of 
that history, Prime ministers are not conventionally accorded the same 
reverential treatment as presidents.

Why is the US President accorded such reverence? One has to the remember 
that the US constitution was emphatically NOT written to advance popular 
democracy. It was written, by contrast, to leaven the perceived 
instabilities of democracy with the virtues of other forms of 
government. The US constitution was modeled on John Adams' Massachusetts 
constitution, which attempted to combine the three Classical forms of 
government -- monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy -- with the hope that 
they would each be able to prevent the other forms from falling into 
their (again Classical) degenerate forms: tyrany, oligarchy, and 
anarchy. The president was to be the analog of the (constitutional) 
monarch. Originally, you may recall, the president was not selected by 
popular vote of the nation (indeed, it still isn't) but rather by a vote 
of Electors representing each state (thus the origin of the current 
Electoral College). As a quasi-monarch, he was to be accorded the (some 
of the) respect due a monarch. The Senate was the analog to the 
classical governmental form of aristocracy -- rule by the nation's most 
superior citizens. Senators were not elected in the early US, but were 
appointed by the governors of the states, a tradition that carried on up 
into the 1920s, as I recall, and still continues in muted form in the 
right of governors (in many states) to appoint replacement senators when 
one resigns or dies, as was recently made infamous by the Blagojovich 
scandal. Only the House of Representatives was intended to be analogous 
to the democratic form of government (the "rabble"), and, you will 
notice, that the House remains more raucous than the Senate to this day, 
and that Senators still like to distinguish their chamber from the House 
by pointing to its superior "decorum," and to their own elevated 
"gentlemanliness." The US House of Reps is the direct descendant of the 
Westminister House of Commons (where shouting at the Prime Minister 
continues to this day). And who shouted "You Lie!" at the President? Was 
it a senator? No. It was a representative of the House. Just like you 
would expect historically.

Do I think that Wilson explicitly knows all this history, and the very 
conventional role that he played in it? Of course not. I think that he 
(and most of the rest of us) absorbed it through cultural osmosis and it 
resides tacitly in his very bones.

Chris
-- 

Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada

 

416-736-2100 ex. 66164
[email protected]
http://www.yorku.ca/christo/

==========================


---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([email protected])

Reply via email to