This Monday, Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister of the UK, resigned due to rising unpopularity in the Labour Party and numerous defeats in local elections. For Starmer, the choice was cut out for him, as if he stayed in office he would likely lose a leadership challenge to newly elected MP Andy Burnham. Once Starmer’s successor is named, the UK would see its seventh prime minister in a decade. Despite all that has been said about instability in United States politics since Trump’s victory in 2016, Britain has been quite similar, rapidly shuffling through leaders since the Brexit referendum. While the United States does not have a prime minister, we do have a Speaker of the House, which are both selected in a virtually identical way (The Prime Minister/Speaker both receive a majority of votes from members of the majority party). The chaotic nature of choosing a prime minister is also reflected in the Speakership, as the three most recent Republican speakers have resigned, retired, or been forced out due to leadership struggles, and the current Speaker Mike Johnson has also faced heavy pressure. From an operational perspective, the United States’s governing system seems more smooth than the UK’s. In Britain, a minority of rogue parliamentary members from the dominating party could cause a national leadership crisis, while in the United States this leadership crisis would only apply to the House of Representatives, while the more stable Senate, Executive Branch, and Judicial Branch would continue as normal. However, this relative overall government stability that America enjoys is likely also what gives its system a bad wrap. A congress constantly in chaos, with an embattled Speaker and filibustered Senate, will naturally cede its decision-making power to the executive branch (the President). And in turn, the President, who enjoys 4 years of virtually guaranteed leadership, is not held to the same account that the UK prime minister would be, making the presidency a much stronger position. As a result, a stronger President would either strong-arm a weaker congress, or just govern through executive orders. When Presidents govern through executive order, however, they almost certainly get sued, which sets up a fight with the Judicial branch, where the Legislative branch is almost entirely cut out (except for appointments). The downside to executive orders is that they are very easily reversible compared to a law passed by congress, which is perhaps one of the largest threats to President Trump’s impact and legacy. Aside from extending his 2017 tax cuts, Trump really has not really done much on the legislative side during his second term, mostly preferring to govern through executive orders, tariff orders, and heavy involvement in foreign affairs. As a result, when a Democrat comes into office, many of his actions will almost certainly be undone, and the same can inevitably happen the other way around too. Now, going back to the UK, while it still does have a revolving door of leaders, the philosophy of solving grievances and disputes on the largest stage actually have seemed to lead to permanent, forward movement, like Brexit and Social Media reforms (whether this movement is good or bad depends on the person, but it is movement nonetheless). On the other hand, in the United States, if we cannot find a way to clean the institutional rot that has neutered our legislative branch, real, tangible progress that actually changes people’s lives will become harder and harder to achieve.
Menu