The British system is a result of a rich and complex history that began from the thirteenth century. It has undergone many changes to reach its current form. It continues to evolve and adapt to the society that it governs. The German system has been introduced before 1949, and Germany was governed by a political regime that was less liberal (has succeeded the German Empire (1871-1918), a constitutional monarchy with authoritarian tendencies. The Weimar Republic (1919-1933), which was more centralized in the Third Reich (1933-1945), and finally allowed Hitler to power. After the defeat of Germany at the end of the Second World War, it was divided into four zones occupied by its so-called ‘allies' of France, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and the USSR. The first three allies participated actively in the drafting of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), which was due to start a draft text in lieu of constitution for Germany.
Adopted on May 8, 1949, the Basic Law only applied to the FRG, but nevertheless contained provisions that could be extended to Germany. This text covers the organization of the German government, which now represents itself as a rationalized parliamentary system. The system appears as a British parliamentary system which is rather unorganized. What distinguishes these two regimes and why are both regimes are so-called ‘parliamentary'?
The British system of government is based on an oral constitution and customary. There was never any written text value solemn resuming the constitutional regime. Having no written text, the constitutional amendment is therefore more easily. This is called flexible Constitution, which can be revised without special procedures. Written laws that affect certain constitutional matters are ordinary laws (such as the Bill of Right off 1688).
Tags: German system, Republic of Germany, British parliamentary system
[...] Having no written text, the constitutional amendment is thus made more easily. This is called a flexible Constitution, which may be revised without any special procedure. Written laws affecting certain constitutional matters are ordinary laws (such as the Bill of Right off 1688). Constitutional conventions in turn, are subject to no text, and are not strictly subject to the constitutional amendment, but may, of course, change significantly, and they are constantly adapting to the British society. Finally, there is no real control of constitutionality, since no physical constitution exists. [...]
[...] Both are led by a leader who must consider the sense of parliament, and maintain the cohesion of the party. The main reason for this lies in the bipartisanship voting: it is FPTP (immediately elected from the candidate list or being topped). This type of voting can lead voters to vote for the party which is "useful" right now, and so removes the opportunity for third parties to win votes (the entire electoral body will primarily focus on the choice between the two candidates most likely to prevail in this case the Labor candidate or the Conservative candidate), for the temptation to vote as a " witness" is reduced. [...]
[...] We can see unicameral and bicameral parliamentary systems monistic and dualistic systems, unorganized and streamlined systems, etc . Only the general principles of parliamentary seem to remain static. For example, the British and German parliamentary regimes are regimes that although built on a common basis, are now different in many ways. The British system is the result of a rich and complex history, which is born from the thirteenth century, and has undergone many changes to reach its present form. It also continues to evolve and adapt to company it oversees. [...]
[...] The dissolution of the Bundestag is also limited to two strict conditions: it cannot be dissolved in the beginning of term, if it fails to appoint a chancellor or general elections, after a matter of trust unsuccessful, if it fails again to appoint a new chancellor. The political responsibility of the government is to the Parliament, but the inverse responsibility also varies between German and British parliamentary system: while in the former, it remains tightly controlled, in the second it is much less subject to conditions. To this divergence on the design of political accountability, is added a difference in the vision of political life. While bipartisanship governs the English system of government, there is a moderate multiparty in Germany. [...]
[...] the inverse of federalism), and did not keep the main concern, and so quite assertive and transparent rule of absolute right. The German parliamentary system is the result of a story quite different from the British system, which is a first explanation for the differences. The other main reason is based on their differences in the constitutional form they have taken. The contrast between the written German Constitution and oral British Constitution The British system of government is based on oral and customary constitution. There has never been a written solemn text of the constitutional provisions of the plan text. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
