:: wikimiki.org ::
| Vote Of No Confidence |
Vote of no confidenceA motion of no confidence, also called a motion of non confidence, is a parliamentary motion traditionally put before a parliament by the opposition in the hope of defeating or embarrassing a government. On rare occasions, it may also be put on the parliamentary order paper by an erstwhile supporter who has lost confidence in the government. The motion is passed or rejected by means of a parliamentary vote (a vote of no confidence).
Governments often respond to a Motion of No Confidence by proposing a Motion of Confidence which, according to parliamentary procedure in the Westminster System, takes precedence and so replaces the Motion of No Confidence.
In presidential systems, the legislature may occasionally pass motions of no confidence as was done against United States Secretary of State Dean Acheson in the 1950s, but these motions are of symbolic effect only.
The tradition began in March 1782 when following the defeat of the British army at Yorktown in the American Revolutionary War, the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain voted that they "can no longer repose confidence in the present ministers." The then Prime Minister, Lord North, responded by asking King George III to accept his resignation. This did not immediately create a constitutional convention; however, during the early 19th century, attempts by Prime Ministers to govern in the absence of a parliamentary majority proved unsuccessful, and by the mid 19th century, the ability of a motion of no confidence to break a government was firmly established in the UK.
Typically, when parliament votes no confidence, or where it fails to vote confidence, a government must either:
# resign, or
# seek a parliamentary dissolution and request a General Election.
This procedure is either formalized through constitutional convention as is the case with the United Kingdom or explicitly stated in the constitutional law as is the case with Germany and Spain.
Where a government has lost the confidence of the responsible house (i.e., the directly elected lower chamber which can select and dismiss it, as in Spain; though in some states both houses of parliament are responsible) a head of state may have the constitutional right to refuse a request for a parliamentary dissolution, so forcing an immediate resignation.
Variations
There are a number of variations in this procedure.
For example, in Germany, Spain, and Israel, a vote of No Confidence requires that the opposition, on the same ballot, propose a candidate of their own whom they want to be appointed as successor by the respective head of state. Thus the Motion of No Confidence is required to be at the same time a Motion of Confidence for a new candidate (this variation is called a Constructive Vote of No Confidence). The idea was to prevent crises of the state by always having a head of government in office. Unlike the British system, the German Chancellor does not have to resign in response to the failure of a vote of Confidence but rather may ask the Federal President to call General Elections - a request the President may or may not fulfill.
A Motion of No Confidence can be proposed in the government collectively or by any individual member, including the Prime Minister. In Spain it is presented by the Prime Minister after consultation. Sometimes Motions of No Confidence are proposed, even though they have no likelihood of passage, simply to pressure a government or to embarrass its own critics who nevertheless for political reasons dare not vote against it. In many parliamentary democracies, strict time limits exist as to the proposing of a No Confidence motion, with a vote only allowed once every three, four or six months. Thus knowing when to use a Motion of No Confidence is a matter of political judgement; using a Motion of No Confidence on a relatively trivial matter may prove counterproductive to its proposer if a more important issue suddenly arises which warrants a Motion of No Confidence, because a motion cannot be proposed if one had been voted on recently and cannot be proposed again for a number of months.
In modern times, passage of a Motion of No Confidence is a relatively rare event in two party democracies. In almost all cases, party discipline is sufficient to allow a majority party to defeat a Motion of No Confidence, and if faced with possible defections in the government party, the government is likely to change its policies rather than lose a vote of No Confidence. The cases in which a Motion of No Confidence have passed are generally those in which the government party has a slim majority which is eliminated by either by-elections or defections.
Often, important bills serve as Motions of No Confidence, when so declared by the government. This may be used to prevent dissident members of parliament from voting against it. Sometimes a government may lose a vote because the opposition ends debate prematurely when too many of its members are away on business, pleasure or lunch; in this case, however, the prime minister rarely resigns or calls an election.
In the Westminster System, the defeat of a supply bill (one that concerns the spending of money) automatically requires the resignation of the government or dissolution of Parliament, much like a no-confidence vote, since a government that cannot spend money is hamstrung. This is called loss of supply.
Motions of No Confidence are far more common in multi-party systems in which a minority party must form coalition government. This can result in the situation in which there are many short-lived governments because the party structure allows small parties to break a government without means to create a government. This has widely been regarded as the cause of instability for the French Fourth Republic and the German Weimar Republic. More recent examples of this phenomenon have been in Italy between the 1950s and 1990s, Israel, and Japan.
To deal with this situation, the French placed large amount of executive power in the office of President of France, which is immune from Motions of No Confidence.
Prime Ministers defeated by votes of no confidence
Australia
- James Scullin (1931)
- Arthur Fadden (1941)
- Malcolm Fraser (1975)
Canada
- Arthur Meighen (1926)
- John George Diefenbaker (1963)
- Pierre Trudeau (1974)
- Joe Clark (1979)
- Paul Martin (2005)
France
- Georges Pompidou (1962)
Germany
- Helmut Schmidt (1982)
India
- Atal Bihari Vajpayee (1996)
Israel
- Yitzhak Shamir (1990)
Italy
- Amintore Fanfani (1954)
- Romano Prodi (1998)
Japan
- Shigeru Yoshida (1954)
- Masayoshi Ohira (1980)
- Kiichi Miyazawa (1993)
Ukraine
- Viktor Yushchenko (2001)
- Viktor Yanukovych (2004)
United Kingdom
- Lord North (1782)
- Stanley Baldwin (1924)
- James Callaghan (1979)
Vanuatu
- Serge Vohor (2004)
Footnotes
[1] The vote of no confidence against Fraser was in unique circumstances. The Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, had dismissed Gough Whitlam and his Labor government, despite a clear, stable Labor majority in the House of Representatives, and appointed Liberal leader Malcolm Fraser Prime Minister. Fraser then advised the dissolution of both houses and the calling of an early election. Whitlam responded by reassembling the House of Representatives and passing a motion of no confidence in Fraser, but since an election had already been called, this gesture made no difference. At the ensuing elections Fraser and the Liberals won a landslide victory.
[2] While previous Canadian prime ministers were defeated on loss of supply matters considered to be confidence measures, and Joe Clark was defeated by the passage of a subamendment to a budget bill that read "that this House has lost confidence in the government," only Paul Martin lost an actual motion of non-confidence put forward by the opposition parties.
Category:Political terms
Category:Parliamentary law
Category:Government
Parliamentary procedureA parliamentary procedure is the individual process used for decision making by a deliberative assembly.
The term is often erroneously used to refer to the Common Law of Parliamentary Procedure and Robert's Rules of Order. Both specify parliamentary procedures but not the only ones.
Parliamentary procedures vary amongst assemblies. In jurisdictions subject to English Common Law, an assembly's parliamentary procedure is specified by the Common Law of Parliamentary Procedure plus the assembly's Rules of Order and Special Rules of Order.
See also
- American Institute of Parliamentarians
- National Association of Parliamentarians
External references
- [http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/house/precis/titpg-e.htm Précis of Procedure for Canada's House of Commons]
Category:Parliamentary law
Parliament:This article is about the legislative institution. For alternative meanings, see: Parliament (disambiguation).
Parliament (disambiguation).]]
A parliament is a legislature, especially in those countries whose system of government is based on the Westminster system derived from that of the United Kingdom. The name is derived from the French parlement, the action of parler (to speak): a parlement is a talk, a discussion, hence a meeting (an assembly, a court) where people discuss matters. While all parliaments are legislatures, not all legislatures are parliaments.
The British Parliament is often referred to as the "Mother of Parliaments"—in fact a misquotation of John Bright, who remarked in 1865 that "England is the Mother of Parliaments"—because the British Parliament has been the model for most other parliamentary systems, and its Acts have created many other parliaments. The first English Parliament was formed during the reign of King Henry III in the 13th century. In the United Kingdom, Parliament consists of the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and the Monarch. The House of Commons is composed of over 600 members who are directly elected by British citizens to represent various cities, communities, and other electoral districts. The party that can win the most seats in the House of Commons forms the government, and the party leader becomes the Prime Minister and head of government. Legislation originates from and is voted on by members of the House of Commons. If passed, it goes to the House of Lords. The House of Lords is a body of long-serving, unelected members: 92 of whom inherit their seats and 574 of whom have been appointed to lifetime seats. The Lords must vote to approve all legislation from the House before it can go before the monarch and receive the formal ratification to become a law (however, under certain circumstances the House of Commons may overrule it using the Parliament Acts). In addition, specific members of the House of Lords act as the ultimate court of appeal in the United Kingdom.
In a similar fashion, most other nations with parliaments have to some degree emulated the British, "three-tier" model. Most countries in Europe and the Commonwealth have similarly organized parliaments with a largely ceremonial head of state who formally opens and closes parliament, a large elected lower house and a smaller, upper house. The lower house is almost always the originator of legislation, and the upper house is the body that offers the "second look" and decides whether to veto or approve the bills. This style of two houses is called bicameral; also parliaments with only one house exist (see unicameralism).
A parliament's lower house is usually composed of at least 200 members, in countries with populations of over 3 million. The number of seats rarely exceeds 400, even in very large countries. The upper house customarily has anywhere from 20, 50, or 100 seats, but almost always significantly fewer than the lower house.
A nation's prime minister ("PM") is almost always the leader of the majority party in the lower house of parliament, but only holds his or her office as long as the "confidence of the house" is maintained. If members of parliament lose faith in the leader for whatever reason, they can often call a vote of no confidence and force the PM to resign. This can be particularly dangerous to a government when the distribution of seats is relatively even, in which case a new election is often called shortly thereafter.
Parliaments can be contrasted with congresses in the model of the United States. Typically, congresses do not select or dismiss the head of government, and cannot themselves be dissolved early as is often the case for parliaments.
List of parliaments
:List is not exhaustive
Contemporary national parliaments
- European Parliament
- Pan-African Parliament
- Central American Parliament
- Parliament of Australia
- Parliament of Canada
:
- The federal government of Canada has a bicameral parliament, and each of Canada's 10 provinces has a unicameral parliament.
- Parliament of the Fiji Islands
- Parliament of France (Parlement)
- Parliament of Germany - The Bundestag
- Hungarian Parliament Building (Országház)
- Parliament of India consisting of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha
- Parliament of Israel - The Knesset
- Parliament of Italy (Parlamento Italiano)
- Parliament of Malaysia
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Parliament of Serbia and Montenegro
- Parliament of Singapore
- Parliament of South Africa
- Parliament of Sri Lanka
- Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago
- Parliament of the United Kingdom
- Scottish Parliament
Equivalent national legislatures
- Majlis, e.g. in Iran
- in Afghanistan : Wolesi Jirga (elected, legislative lower house) and Meshrano Jirga (mainly advisory, indirect representation); in special cases, e.g. as constituant assembly, a Loya Jirga
Defunct
- Parliament of Ireland (1200-1801 AD)
- Parliament of Southern Ireland (1921-1922)
- Parliament of Northern Ireland (1921-1973)
Subnational parliaments
- In the federal (bicameral) kingdom of Belgium, after many constitutional contortions but no violent confrontation, there is a curious asymmetrical constellation serving as directly elected legislatures for three 'territorial' regions -Flanders (Dutch language), Brussels (bilingual, certain peculiarities of competence, also the only region not comprizing any of the 10 provinces) and Walloonia (French)- and three cultural communities -Flemish (Dutch language, competent in Flanders and for the Dutch-speaking inhabitants of Brussels), Francophone (French language, for Walloonia and francopones in Brussels) and German (for speakers of that language in a a few designated municipalities in the east of the Walloon Region, always alongside francophones but under two different regimes)
- Vlaams Parlement ('Flemish Parliament'; originally styled Vlaamse Raad 'Flemish Council') served both the Flemish Community (whose same it uses) and, in application of a Belgian constitutional option, of the region of Flanders (in all matters of regional competence, its decisions have no effect in Brussels)
- parliament of the French Community
- parliament of the German Community
- parliament of the Walloon region
- parliament of the Brussels 'capital' region;
- within the capital's regional assembly however, there also exist two so-called Community Commissions (fixed numbers, not an automatical repartition of the regional assembly), a Dutch-speaking one and a francophone one, for various matters split up by linguistic community but under Brssels' regional competence, and even 'joint community ccmmissions' consisting of both for certain instititutions that could be split up but aren't
See also
- Inter-Parliamentary Union
- Witan
- List of national parliaments
- Parliamentary System
- Legislation
- Delegated legislation
Category:Legislatures
ja:議会
ko:국회
Motion of ConfidenceA Motion of Confidence is a motion of support proposed by a government in a parliament or other assembly of elected representatives to give members of parliament (or other such assembly) a chance to register their confidence in a government. The motion is passed or rejected by means of a parliamentary vote (a Vote of Confidence). Governments often propose a Motion of Confidence to replace a Motion of No Confidence proposed by the opposition.
Defeat of a Motion of Confidence in a parliamentary democracy generally requires one of two actions:
# the resignation of the government, or
# a request for a parliamentary dissolution and the calling of a General Election.
Where a Motion of Confidence has been defeated (or a motion of no confidence passed), a head of state is often constitutionally empowered (should they wish) to refuse a parliamentary dissolution if one is requested, forcing the government back to the resignation option.
A Motion of Confidence may be proposed in the government collectively or in any member thereof, including the prime minister. In Germany, a Motion of Confidence is sometimes added as an amendment to another piece of legislation.
A Motion of Confidence may also be used tactically to humiliate critics of a government (often from the inside of the governing party or parties) who nevertheless dare not vote against the government. By forcing them to vote for the government notwithstanding their public criticism, the proposer of the motion may hope to silence or embarrass critics. It may also be used to unite a divided party or government by creating a sense of 'one for all, all for one' loyalty, bonding a divided government together against the opposition.
However, tactical Motions of Confidence are dangerous, as they may backfire catastrophically against those who use them, if they have misjudged the willingness of their opponents to call the proposer's bluff and vote against the motion.
Examples of defeats of Motions of Confidence
- The minority government of James Callaghan: British House of Commons in 1979
- Charles Haughey's minority government: Dáil Éireann (Irish lower house) in November 1982.
- Joe Clark's minority government in Canada: 1979–1980
- Gerhard Schröder's majority government in Germany in July 2005.
- Paul Martin's minority government in Canada in November 2005.
Examples of how constitutional rules work
Bunreacht na hÉireann: Ireland's Constitution
Article 28.10
The Taoiseach shall resign from office upon his ceasing to retain the support of a majority in Dáil Éireann unless on his advice the President dissolves Dáil Éireann and on the reassembly of Dáil Éireann after the dissolution the Taoiseach secures the support of a majority in Dáil Éireann.
Where a Taoiseach seeks a dissolution in such circumstances, the following article comes into play.
Article 12.2.2
The President may in his absolute discretion refuse to dissolve Dáil Éireann on the advice of a Taoiseach who has ceased to retain the support of a majority in Dáil Éireann.
The Basic Law: the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany
The German Federal Chancellor can propose a Motion of Confidence to the Bundestag. Article 68 of the German Basic Law allows that procedure:
Article 68
#If a motion of a Federal Chancellor for a vote of confidence is not assented to by the majority of the members of the Bundestag, the Federal President may, upon the proposal of the Federal Chancellor, dissolve the Bundestag within twenty-one days. The right to dissolve shall lapse as soon as the Bundestag with the majority of its members elects another Federal Chancellor.
#Forty-eight hours must elapse between the motion and the vote thereon.
After the failure of such a Motion of Confidence the Chancellor can ask the President to dissolve the Bundestag or to call the Legislative State of Emergency (Gesetzgebungsnotstand). This is one of the rare cases in German constitutional law where the president has real power to decide whether to do as asked. If the president refuses the chancellor's request, no dissolution will take place.
As of 2005, there have been five motions of confidence since the founding of the Federal Republic in 1949:
# September 22, 1972: Chancellor Willy Brandt wished to have the Bundestag dissolved because a stalemate over his controversial Ostpolitik allows no side to act. He lost on purpose by 233 votes to 263. President Gustav Heinemann dissolved the Bundestag. The following election turned out to be a victory for Willy Brandt's programme.
# February 5, 1982: Chancellor Helmut Schmidt wished the Bundestag to express its confidence in him when there was growing discontent especially among the delegates of the FDP party, the junior partner in Schmidt's government. He won by 269 votes to 228. However, eight months later he was sacked when the FDP switches sides.
# December 17, 1982: Chancellor Helmut Kohl wished to have the Bundestag dissolved in order to call a general election, so that his new government could be confirmed by the people, following the switch of the FDP party from supporting Schmidt's SPD to supporting Kohl's CDU. He loses on purpose by 8 votes to 489; President Karl Carstens dissolved the Bundestag, and Kohl scored a major victory in the following election. The procedure — considered by many to be unconstitutional since Kohl had a secure majority — was affirmed by the Federal Constitutional Court with some grinding of teeth, but disallowed for the future.
# November 16, 2001: Chancellor Gerhard Schröder wished his coalition to pass by an own majority (i.e. without having to rely on opposition support) a government motion to allow German soldiers to take part in the U.S.-led military action Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. He won by 336 votes to 330.
# July 1, 2005: Chancellor Gerhard Schröder lost on purpose in order to ask President Horst Köhler to dissolve the Bundestag. The alleged reason was a crisis of confidence in his labour and welfare reform programmes within his own SPD party. Most observers doubt that Schröder would have had the ability to keep his very slim majority in line until the regular election in late 2006.
Category:Political terms
Category:Parliamentary law
Westminster SystemThe Westminster System is a democratic system of government modelled after that of the United Kingdom system, as used in the Palace of Westminster, the location of the UK parliament. The system is a series of procedures for operating a legislature. It is used, or was once also used, in most Commonwealth and ex-Commonwealth nations, beginning with the Canadian provinces in the mid-19th century. It is also used in Australia, India, the Republic of Ireland, Jamaica, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, and Malta. There are other parliamentary systems, for example those of Germany and Italy, whose procedures differ considerably from the Westminster system.
Aspects of the Westminster system include:
- an executive branch usually made up of members of the legislature with the senior members of the executive in a Cabinet;
- the presence of opposition parties;
- an elected legislature, or a system in which one of two houses is elected and the other appointed; and
- a ceremonial head of state, who is different from the head of government, and who may possess reserve powers that are not normally exercised.
Most of the procedures of the Westminster system have originated with the conventions, practices and precedents of the UK parliament, which are a part of what is known as the British constitution. Unlike the UK, most countries that use the Westminster system have codified the system in a written constitution. However convention, practices and precedents continue to play a significant role in these countries, as many constitutions do not specify important elements of procedure: for example, older constitutions using the Westminster system, such as the Canadian constitution, may not even mention the existence of the Cabinet and the title of the head of the government (Prime Minister), because these offices' existence and role evolved outside the primary constitutional text.
Operation
In a Westminster system, the members of parliament are elected by popular vote. The head of government is usually chosen by being invited to form a government (that is, an administration), by the head of state or the representative of the head of state (that is, the governor-general), not by parliamentary vote (see Kiss Hands.) There are notable exceptions to the above in the Republic of Ireland, where the President of Ireland has a mandate through direct election, and the Taoiseach (prime minister) prior to appointment by the President of Ireland is nominated by the democratically elected lower house, Dáil Éireann.
Because of the mandate and the potentially significant constitutional powers of the Irish president, some authorities believe the Irish constitution is as similar to semi-presidential systems, as it is to Westminster. Similarly, under the constitutions of some Commonwealth countries, a president or Governor-General may possess clearly significant reserve powers. One example is the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975, in which the Governor-General dismissed the Prime Minister, who held a majority in the Australian House of Representatives. Because of constitutional differences, the formal powers of presidents and Governors-General vary greatly from one country to another. However, as Governors-General are not directly elected, they lack the popular mandate held, for example, by an Irish president. Because of this, Governors-General rarely risk the public disapproval which would result from them making unilateral and/or controversial uses of their powers.
The head of government, usually called the Prime Minister, must be able either (a) to control a majority of seats within the lower house, (b) to ensure the existence of no absolute majority against them. If the parliament passes a resolution of no confidence or if the government fails to pass a major bill such as the budget, then the government must either resign so that a different government can be appointed or seek a parliamentary dissolution so that new public elections may be held in order to re-confirm or deny their mandate.
In addition to a majority in the Australian House of Representatives, an Australian prime minister must also secure a Senate which is willing to pass budgets. Many political scientists have held that the Australian system of government was consciously devised as a blend or hybrid of the Westminster and the United States systems of government, especially since the Australian Senate is a very powerful upper house. This notion is expressed in the nickname "Washminster system". For example, the Australian Senate maintains similar powers to those held by the US Senate or the British House of Lords, prior to 1911, to block supply to a party with a majority in the House of Representatives.
Although the dissolution of the legislature and the call for new elections is formally done by the head of state, by convention the head of state acts according to the wishes of the head of government.
In exceptional circumstances the head of state may either refuse a dissolution request, as in the King-Byng Affair, or dismiss the government, as in the Australian crisis of 1975. Either action is likely to bend or break existing conventions. The Lascelles Principles were an attempt to create a convention to cover similar situations, but have not been tested in practice.
Cabinet government
In his book "The English Constitution" which was published in 1876, Walter Bagehot emphasised the divide of the constitution into two components: the Dignified (that part which is symbolic) and the Efficient (the way things actually work and get done) and called the Efficient "Cabinet Government". Although there have been many works since emphasising different aspects of the "Efficient", no one has seriously questioned Bagehot's premise that the divide exists in the Westminster system.
Members of the Cabinet are collectively seen as responsible for government policy. All Cabinet decisions are made by consensus, a vote is never taken in a Cabinet meeting. All ministers, whether senior and in the Cabinet, or junior ministers, must support the policy of the government publicly regardless of any private reservations. When a Cabinet reshuffle is imminent, a lot of time is taken up in the conversations of politicians and in the news media, speculating on who will, or will not, be moved in and out of the Cabinet by the Prime Minister, because the appointment of ministers to the Cabinet and threat of dismissal from the Cabinet, is the single most powerful constitutional power which a Prime Minister has in the political control of the Government in the Westminster system.
Linked to Cabinet government is the idea, at least in theory, that ministers are responsible for the actions of their departments. However, because many government departments are huge bureaucracies with powerful senior staff, the ministers in charge of departments are now held accountable only for the implementation of policy decisions and any misconduct of themselves and those civil servants over whom they have direct control. It is no longer considered to be an issue of resignation if the actions of members of their department, over whom the minister has no direct control, make mistakes or formulate procedures which are not in accordance with agreed policy decisions. One of the major powers of the Prime Minister under the Westminster system is to be the arbitrator of when a fellow minister is accountable for the actions of his or her department.
The Official Opposition and other major political parties not in the Government, will mirror the governmental organisation with their own Shadow Cabinet made up of Shadow Ministers.
Consequences
The Westminster system tends to have extremely well-disciplined legislative parties in which it is highly unusual for a legislator to vote against their party, and in which no-confidence votes are very rare. Also, Westminster systems tend to have strong cabinets in which cabinet members are politicians with independent bases of support. Conversely, legislative committees in Westminster systems tend to be weak.
Ceremonies
The Westminster system has a very distinct appearance when functioning, with many British customs incorporated into day-to-day government function. A Westminster-style parliament is usually a long, rectangular room, with two rows of seats and desks on either side. The chairs are positioned so that the two rows are facing each other. The intended purpose of this arrangement is to create a visual representation of the conflict-filled nature of parliamentary government. Traditionally, the opposition parties will sit in one row of seats, and the government party will sit in the other. Of course, sometimes a majority government is so large that it must use the "opposition" seats as well. In the lower house at Westminster (the House of Commons) there are lines on the floor in front of the government and opposition benches that members may cross only when exiting the chamber. The distance between the lines is the length of two swords.
At one end of the room sits a large chair, for the Speaker of the House. The speaker usually wears a black robe, and in many countries, a wig. Robed parliamentary clerks often sit at narrow tables between the two rows of seats, as well.
Other ceremonies sometimes associated with the Westminster system include an annual Speech from the Throne (or equivalent) in which the Head of State gives a special address (written by the government) to parliament about what kind of policies to expect in the coming year, and lengthy State Opening of Parliament ceremonies that often involve the presentation of a large ceremonial mace.
Some countries under the Westminster system
- Australia
- Barbados
- Canada
- India
- Jamaica
- Malaysia
- Malta
- New Zealand
- Singapore
- South Africa
- Trinidad and Tobago
- The United Kingdom
See also
- List of democracy and elections-related topics
- Magna Carta
- English Civil War
- Glorious Revolution
- English Bill of Rights
- History of Parliamentarism
- Petition of rights
Notes
# "The English Constitution" see Bibliography.
Bibliography
- The English Constitution, Walter Bagehot, 1876. ISBN 0521465354, ISBN 0521469422.
- British Cabinet Government, Simon James, Pub Routledge, 1999. ISBN 0415179777.
- Prime Minister & Cabinet Government, Neil MacNaughton, 1999. ISBN 0340747595.
External link
- [http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~pnorris/Acrobat/APSA%202000%20bpg%20Twilight.pdf The Twilight of Westminster? Electoral Reform & its Consequences], Pippa Norris, 2000.
Category:Political systems
Category:Westminster System
Category:Democracy
Category:Systems
Presidential systemA presidential system, or a congressional system, is a system of government of a republic where the executive branch is elected separately from the legislative.
The defining characteristic of a presidential government is how the executive is elected, but nearly all presidential systems share the following features:
- The president is both head of state and head of government.
- The president has no formal relationship with the legislature. He is not a voting member, nor can he introduce bills.
- The president has a fixed term of office. Elections are held at scheduled times, and cannot be triggered by a vote of confidence or other such parliamentary procedures.
- The executive branch is unipersonal. Members of the cabinet serve at the pleasure of the president and must carry out the policies of the executive and legislative branches.
The term presidential system is often used in contrast to cabinet government, which is usually a feature of parliamentarism. There also exists a kind of intermediate, the semi-presidential system.
Countries with congressional and presidential systems include the United States, Indonesia, the Philippines, Mexico, South Korea, and most countries in South America. The widespread use of presidentialism in the Americas has caused political scientists to dub the Americas as "the continent of presidentialism".
Types of presidents
Many countries with a president as head of state do not operate under what is described as a presidential system. Many parliamentary nations, Germany and Italy, for instance, have an office of president, but these presidents are merely figurehead heads of state, like constitutional monarchs, and not active, executive heads of government. In a full-fledged presidential system, a president would be chosen by the people and be the center of the executive branch.
Presidential governments make no distinction between the positions of Head of state and Head of government, both of which are held by the president. Most parliamentary governments have a symbolic head of state in the form of a president or monarch. That person is responsible for the formalities of state functions as the figurehead while the constitutional prerogatives as head of government are generally exercised by the Prime Minister. Such figurehead presidents tend to be elected in a much less direct manner than active, presidential system presidents, for example by a vote of the legislature. A few nations, such as Ireland, do have a popularly elected ceremonial president.
There are also a few countries - South Africa being an example - which have powerful presidents who are elected by the legislature. These presidents are chosen in the same way as a prime minister, yet are both heads of state and heads of government. These executives are titled "president," yet are constitutionally identical to prime ministers. Incidentally, the method of legislative vote for president was a plank in Madison's Virginia Plan and was seriously considered by the Framers of the American Constitution.
Some political scientists consider the conflation of head of state and head of government duties to be a problem of presidentialism because criticism of the president as head of state is criticism of the state itself.
Presidents in presidential systems are always active participants in the political process, though the extent of their relative power may be influenced by the political makeup of the legislature and whether their supporters or opponents have the dominant position therein. In some presidential systems such as South Korea or the Republic of China (or Taiwan), there is an office of the prime minister or premier, but unlike in semi-presidential or parliamentary systems, the premier is responsible to the president rather than to the legislature.
Perceived advantages of presidential systems
Supporters generally claim four basic advantages for presidential systems:
- Direct mandate — in a presidential system, the president is generally elected directly by the people. To some, this makes the president's power more legitimate than that of a leader appointed indirectly.
- Separation of powers — a presidential system establishes the presidency and the legislature as two parallel structures. Supporters of the system claim that this arrangement allows each structure to supervise the other, preventing abuses.
- Speed and decisiveness — some argue that a president with strong powers can usually enact changes quickly, and that this is a good thing. Others argue that the separation of powers slows the system down, and that this is a good thing.
- Stability — a president, by virtue of a fixed term, may provide more stability than a prime minister who can be dismissed at any time.
Direct mandate
A prime minister is usually chosen by a few individuals of the legislature, while a president is usually chosen by the people. According to supporters of the presidential system, a popularly elected leadership is inherently more democratic than a leadership chosen by a legislative body, even if the legislative body was itself elected.
Through making more than one electoral choice voters in a presidential system can more accurately indicate their policy preferences. Some political scientists interpret the late Cold War to elect a Democratic Congress and a Republican president as the choice for a Republican foreign policy and a Democratic domestic policy.
It is also claimed that the direct mandate of a president makes him or her more accountable. The reasoning behind this argument is that a prime minister is "shielded" from public opinion by the apparatus of state, being several steps removed.
Separation of powers
The fact that a presidential system separates the executive from the legislature is sometimes held up as an advantage, in that each branch may scrutinise the actions of the other. In a parliamentary system, the executive is drawn from the legislature, making criticism of one by the other considerably less likely. According to supporters of the presidential system, the lack of checks and balances means that misconduct by a prime minister may never be discovered. Writing about Watergate, Woodrow Wyatt, a former MP in the UK, said "don't think a Watergate couldn't happen here, you just wouldn't hear about it." (ibid). Critics respond that if a presidential system's legislature is controlled by the president's party, the same situation exists.
Despite the existence of the no confidence vote, in practice, it is extremely difficult to stop a prime minister or cabinet that has made its decision. To vote down the cabinet's legislation is to bring down a government and have new elections, a step few backbenchers are willing to take. Hence, a no confidence vote in some parliamentary countries, like Britain, only occurs a few times in a century. In 1931, David Lloyd George told a select committee "Parliament has really no control over the executive; it is a pure fiction." (Schlesinger 1982)
Speed and decisiveness
Some supporters of presidential systems claim that presidential systems can respond more rapidly to emerging situations than parliamentary ones. A prime minister, when taking action, needs to retain the support of the legislature, but a president is often less constrained. In Why England Slept, future president John F. Kennedy said that Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain were constrained by the need to maintain the confidence of the commons.
Other supporters of presidential systems sometimes argue in the exact opposite direction, however, saying that presidential systems can slow decision-making to beneficial ends. Divided government, where the presidency and the legislature are controlled by different parties, is said to restrain the excesses of both parties, and guarantee bipartisan input into legislation. In the United States, Republican Congressman Bill Frenzel wrote in 1995:
:There are some of us who think gridlock is the best thing since indoor plumbing. Gridlock is the natural gift the Framers of the Constitution gave us so that the country would not be subjected to policy swings resulting from the whimsy of the public. And the competition - whether multi-branch, multi-level, or multi-house - is important to those checks and balances and to our ongoing kind of centrist government. Thank heaven we do not have a government that nationalizes one year and privatizes next year, and so on ad infinitum. (Checks and Balances, 8)
Despite a president's weakness in Congress, checks and balances did not interfere with the legislative programs of Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, the Roosevelts, or Lyndon Johnson.
Stability
Although votes of no confidence tend to be rare in some parliamentary systems, they are common in a few others. Italy, Israel and the French Fourth Republic all have or had problems with governmental stability. When parliamentary systems have multiple parties and governments depend on coalitions, as they do with nations that vote by proportional representation, extremist parties can theoretically use the threat of leaving the coalition to blackmail the centrist parties who are leading.
Many people consider presidential systems to be superior in surviving emergencies. A country under enormous stress may, supporters argue, be better off being led by a president with a fixed term than rotating premierships. France during the Algerian controversy switched to a semi-presidential system, Sri Lanka did likewise during its civil war, and Israel experimented with a directly elected prime minister in 1992. In at least the first two cases, the results are widely considered to have been positive. In the Israeli case, however, direct election of the prime minister produced an unanticipated further proliferation of small parties, and the traditional parliamentary mode of selection was restored.
The fact that elections are fixed in a presidential system is likewise often held as a valuable "check" on the powers of the executive. While parliamentary systems often allow the prime minister to call elections whenever he sees fit, or orchestrate his own vote of no confidence to trigger one when he cannot get a legislative item passed, the presidential model is said to discourage this sort of opportunism, and instead force the executive to operate within the confines of a term he cannot alter to suit his own needs.
Perceived disadvantages of presidential systems
Critics generally claim three basic disadvantages for presidential systems:
- Tendency towards authoritarianism — some political scientists say that the presidentialism is not constitutionally stable. According to some political scientists, such as Fred Riggs, presidentialism has fallen into authoritarianism in every country it has been attempted, except the United States.
- Separation of powers — a presidential system establishes the presidency and the legislature as two parallel structures. Critics argue that this creates undesirable gridlock, and that it reduces accountability by allowing the president and the legislature to shift blame to each other.
- Impediments to leadership change — it is claimed that the difficulty in removing an unsuitable president from office before his or her term has expired represents a significant problem.
Tendency towards authoritarianism
Winning the presidency is a winner-take-all, zero-sum prize — unlike a prime minister, who may have to form a coalition, a president's party can rule without any allies for the duration of one or possibly consecutive terms, a worrisome situation for many interest groups. Juan Linz argues that
:The danger that zero-sum presidential elections pose is compounded by the rigidity of the president's fixed term in office. Winners and losers are sharply defined for the entire period of the presidential mandate. . . losers must wait four or five years without any access to executive power and patronage. The zero-sum game in presidential regimes raises the stakes of presidential elections and inevitably exacerbates their attendant tension and polarization.
Constitutions that only require plurality support are said to be especially undesirable, as significant power can be vested in a person who does not enjoy support from a majority of the population.
Some political scientists go further, and argue that presidential systems have difficulty sustaining democratic practices, noting that presidentialism has slipped into authoritarianism in many of the countries in which it has been implemented. Seymour Martin Lipset and others are careful to point out that this has taken place in political cultures unconducive to democracy, and that militaries have tended to play a prominent role in most of these countries. Nevertheless, certain aspects of the presidential system may have played a role in some situations.
In a presidential system, the legislature and the president have equally valid mandates from the public. There is often no way to reconcile conflict between the branches of government. When president and legislature are at loggerheads and government is not working effectively, there is a powerful incentive to employ extra-constitutional maneuvres to break the deadlock.
Ecuador is presented as a case study of democratic failures over the past quarter-century. Presidents have ignored the legislature or bypassed it altogether. One president had the National Assembly teargassed, while another was kidnapped by paratroopers until he agreed to certain congressional demands. From 1979 through 1988, Ecuador staggered through a succession of executive-legislative confrontations that created a near permanent crisis atmosphere in the polity. In 1984, President León Febres-Cordero tried to physically bar new Congressionally-appointed supreme court appointees from taking their seats. Colombia has similarly exhibited the problems said to be inherent in presidentialism in the last twenty years. Presidents have also gone around Congress to legislate and simply to govern. In Brazil, presidents have accomplished their objectives by creating executive agencies over which Congress had no say (Checks and Balances, pp 34-35).
Separation of powers
Presidential systems are said by critics not to offer voters the kind of accountability seen in parliamentary systems. It is easy for either the president or Congress to escape blame by blaming the other. Describing the United States, former Treasury Secretary C. Douglas Dillon said "the president blames Congress, the Congress blames the president, and the public remains confused and disgusted with government in Washington." (Checks and Balances, 10).
In Congressional Government, Woodrow Wilson asked,
:. . . how is the schoolmaster, the nation, to know which boy needs the whipping? . . . Power and strict accountability for its use are the essential constituents of good government. . . . It is, therefore, manifestly a radical defect in our federal system that it parcels out power and confuses responsibility as it does. The main purpose of the Convention of 1787 seems to have been to accomplish this grievous mistake. The `literary theory' of checks and balances is simply a consistent account of what our constititution makers tried to do; and those checks and balances have proved mischievous just to the extent which they have succeeded in establishing themselves . . . [the Framers] would be the first to admit that the only fruit of dividing power had been to make it irresponsible.(Congressional Government, 186-7)
Consider the example of the increase in the federal debt that occurred during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Arguably, the deficits were the product of a bargain between President Reagan and Speaker of the House of Representatives Tip O'Neill: O'Neill agreed not to oppose Reagan's tax cuts if Reagan would sign the Democrats' budget. Each side could claim to be displeased with the debt, plausibly blame the other side for the deficit, and still tout their own success.
Impediments to leadership change
Another alleged problem of presidentialism is that it is often difficult to remove a president from office early. Even if a president is "proved to be inefficient, even if he becomes unpopular, even if his policy is unacceptable to the majority of his countrymen, he and his methods must be endured till the moment comes for a new election." (Balfour, intro to the English Constitution). Consider John Tyler, who only became president because William Henry Harrison had died after thirty days. Tyler refused to sign Whig legislation, was loathed by his nominal party, but remained firmly in control of the executive branch. Since there is no legal way to remove an unpopular president, many presidential countries have experienced military coups to remove a leader who is said to have lost his mandate, as in Salvador Allende. Presumably, in a parliamentary system, the unpopular leader could have been removed by a vote of no confidence, a device which is a "pressure release valve" for political tension.
In The English Constitution, Walter Bagehot criticized presidentialism because it does not allow a transfer in power in the event of an emergency.
:Under a cabinet constitution at a sudden emergency the people can choose a ruler for the occasion. It is quite possible and even likely that he would not be ruler before the occasion. The great qualities, the imperious will, the rapid energy, the eager nature fit for a great crisis are not required - are impediments- in common times. A Lord Liverpool is better in everyday politics than a Chatham- a Louis Philippe far better than a Napoleon. By the structure of the world we want, at the sudden occurrence of a grave tempest, to change the helmsman - to replace the pilot of the calm by the pilot of the storm.
:But under a presidential government you can do nothing of the kind. The American government calls itself a government of the supreme people; but at a quick crisis, the time when a sovereign power is most needed, you cannot find the supreme people. You have got a congress elected for one fixed period, going out perhaps by fixed installments, which cannot be accelerated or retarded - you have a president chosen for a fixed period, and immovable during that period: . . there is no elastic element. . . you have bespoken your government in advance, and whether it is what you want or not, by law you must keep it . . . (The English Constitution, the Cabinet.)
Years later, Bagehot's observation came to life during and after World War II, when Neville Chamberlain was replaced with Winston Churchill and then Churchill was in turn replaced by Clement Atlee.
Finally, many have criticized presidential systems for their alleged slowness in responding to their citizens' needs. Often, the checks and balances make action extremely difficult. Walter Bagehot said of the American system "the executive is crippled by not getting the law it needs, and the legislature is spoiled by having to act without responsibility: the executive becomes unfit for its name, since it cannot execute what it decides on; the legislature is demoralized by liberty, by taking decisions of others [and not itself] will suffer the effects." (ibid.)
Differences from a cabinet system
A number of key theoretical differences exist between a presidential and a cabinet system:
- In a presidential system, the central principle is that the legislative and executive branches of government should be separate. This leads to the separate election of president, who is elected to office for a fixed term, and only removable for gross misdemeanor by impeachment and dismissal. In addition he or she does not need to choose cabinet members commanding the support of the legislature. By contrast, in parliamentarism, the executive branch is led by a council of ministers, headed by a Prime Minister, who are directly accountable to the legislature and often have their background in the legislature (regardless of whether it is called a "parliament", a "diet", a "chamber").
- As with the President's set term of office, the legislature also exists for a set term of office and cannot be dissolved ahead of schedule. By contrast, in parliamentary systems, the legislature can typically be dissolved at any stage during its life by the head of state, usually on the advice of either Prime Minister alone, by the Prime Minister and cabinet, or by the cabinet.
- In a presidential system, the president usually has special privileges in the enactment of legislation, namely the possession of a power of veto over legislation of bills, in some cases subject to the power of the legislature by weighed majority to override the veto. However, it is extremely rare for the president to have the power to directly propose laws, or cast a vote on legislation. The legislature and the president are thus expected to serve as a checks and balances on each other's powers.
- Presidential system presidents may also be given a great deal of constitutional authority in the exercise of the office of Commander in Chief, a constitutional title given to most presidents. In addition, the presidential power to receive ambassadors as head of state is usually interpreted as giving the president broad powers to conduct foreign policy. Though semi-presidential systems may reduce a president's power over day to day government affairs, semi-presidential systems commonly give the president power over foreign policy.
- Presidential systems have weaker party discipline than parliamentary systems. Backbenchers in a parliamentary system cannot normally vote against their leadership. In a presidential system voting against the president or the Congressional leadership is common and accepted.
:In contrast to that obtained in a parliamentary system, legislators can defect without either risking their own seats or affecting the president's ability to remain in office. (Arturo Valenzuela, 2004)
Presidential systems also have less ideological parties than parliamentary systems. Sometimes in the United States, the policies preferred by the two parties have been very similar (but see also polarization). In the 1950s, during the leadership of Lyndon Johnson, the Senate Democrats included the right-most members of the chamber - Harry Byrd and Strom Thurmond, and the left-most members - Paul Douglas and Herbert Lehman. This pattern prevails in Latin American presidential democracies and the Philippines as well.
The reality
In reality, elements of both systems overlap. Though a president in a presidential system does not have to choose a government answerable to the legislature, the legislature may have the right to scrutinise his or her appointments to high governmental office, with the right, on some occasions, to block an appointment. In the United States, many appointments must be confirmed by the Senate. By contrast, though answerable to parliament, a parliamentary system's cabinet may be able to make use of the parliamentary 'whip' (an obligation on party members in parliament to vote with their party) to control and dominate parliament, reducing its ability to control the government.
In the late nineteenth century, it was speculated that the United States Speaker of the House of Representatives would evolve into a quasi-prime minister, with the US system evolving into a form of parliamentarianism. However this did not happen. More recently, it has been suggested that the office of White House Chief of Staff, the President's chief aide, has become a de facto United States prime minister of sorts, with his dominance or weakness in the US governmental system depending on whether there is a "hands off" or "hands on" president. (Ronald Reagan was the former, Bill Clinton the latter). Reagan's Chiefs of Staff in many ways ran the day to day affairs of government, with the President standing back from intervention.
Some countries, such as France have similarly evolved to such a degree that they can no longer be accurately described as either presidential or parliamentary-style governments, and are instead grouped under the category of semi-presidential system.
Democracies with a presidential system of government
United States of America, Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria, Indonesia, Philippines, Argentina, Peru, Chile, & Afghanistan, most states in the Americas.
Note: Many legislators, including the President in the Philippines want a constitutional amendment to switch from a presidential to parliamentary form of government.
United Nations reform and presidentialism
Some have called for presidentialism in regard to electing a UN Secretary-General. This would result from an election of the Secretary-General by the global population, instead of by the governments of the member states.
See also
- List of democracy and elections-related topics
- Parliamentary system
External links
- http://www.idea.int/publications/democracy_and_deep_rooted_conflict/ebook_chapter4_3.html
- http://www2.hawaii.edu/~fredr/pres.htm
- http://www.cebem.com/centdocum/documentos/d-parlamen.htm
- [http://www.civilocracy.org Civilocracy] — Merits of an Executive Council and democracy via voluntary sortition.
References
- Bagehot, Walter, The English Constitution. (multiple printings)
- Lijphart, Arend, Ed, Parliamentary Versus Presidential Government (Oxford Readings in Politics and Government), Oxford University Press, 1992.
- Parliamentary Versus Presidential Government contains a number of articles which are directly quoted in this wikipedia article.
- Leave the Constitution Alone, Arthur M. Schlesinger.
- The Centrality of Political Culture, Seymour Martin Lipset.
- Presidentialism: A Problematic Regime Type, Fred W. Riggs.
- Linz, Juan, and Arturo Valenzuela, The Failure of Presidential Democracy: The Case of Latin America Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
- Shugart, Matthew Søberg and John M. Carey. Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
- Manuel, Paul Christopher and Anne Marie Cammisa,Checks & Balances: How a Parliamentary System Could Change American Politics, Westview Press, 1998.
:(The above book is intended for students who are just beginning to learn about comparative government.)
- Wilson, Woodrow, Congressional Government, (multiple printings).
Category:Political systems
Category:Systems
Category :Forms of government
ja:大統領制
United States Secretary of State
The United States Secretary of State is the head of the United States Department of State, concerned with foreign affairs. The Secretary is a member of the President's Cabinet.
The current Secretary is former United States National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.
History
On January 10, 1781, the Second Continental Congress created the office of Secretary of Foreign Affairs to head a "Department of Foreign Affairs". This office ceased operation on March 4, 1789, when the Articles of Confederation gave way to the Constitution.
On July 27, 1789, George Washington signed a congressional bill into law reauthorizing an executive Department of Foreign Affairs headed by a Secretary of Foreign Affairs. Congress then passed another law giving certain additional domestic responsibilities to the new Department and changing its name to the Department of State and the name of head of the department to the Secretary of State, and Washington approved this act on September 15, 1789. The new domestic duties assigned to the newly renamed department were receipt, publication, distribution, and preservation of laws of the United States, custody of the Great Seal of the United States, authentication of copies and preparation of commissions of executive branch appointments, and finally custody of the books, papers, and records of the Continental Congress including the Constitution itself and the Declaration of Independence.
The title of Secretary of State is British in origin. At the time of American independence, "Secretary of State" was a title given to senior members of the King's cabinet (e.g., "Secretary of State in Charge of Colonies"). The position of "Secretary of State of The United States" was thus intended to be the most general and important office in the US government, behind the Presidency.
Functions
cabinet
Most of the original domestic functions of the Department of State have been transferred to other agencies. Those that remain in the Department are: storage and use of the Great Seal of the United States, performance of protocol functions for the White House, drafting of certain Presidential proclamations, formally accepting notice of the president's resignation, and replies to public inquiries. In addition, the Secretary performs such duties as the President is required, in accordance with the United States Constitution, relating to correspondence, commission, or instructions to U.S. ministers or consuls abroad, and to conduct negotiations with foreign representatives. The Secretary has also served as principal adviser to the President in the determination and execution of U.S. foreign policy and in recent decades has become responsible for overall direction, coordination, and supervision of interdepartmental activities of the U.S. Government overseas, except for certain military activities.
As the highest-ranking Cabinet member, the Secretary of State is fourth in line to succeed the Presidency, after the Vice President, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and President pro tempore of the Senate.
Oath of Office
The Oath of Office for the Vice President, Secretary of State, and other federal employees is as follows:
"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Lists of Secretaries of State
In addition to the President listed, this Secretary of State served for a brief period of time (8 days or less) under that President's successor until a replacement could be named and confirmed.
Acting Secretaries of State
If the Secretary resigns, the United States Deputy Secretary of State serves as Acting Secretary of State until the President and Senate approve a formal replacement.
External link
- [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/po/1682.htm List of Secretaries of State]
State
United States, State, Secretary of
Secretary of State
Category:Foreign ministers
ja:アメリカ合衆国国務長官
Dean Acheson
Dean Gooderham Acheson (April 11, 1893 – October 12, 1971) was a United States Secretary of State under President Harry S. Truman. It has often been said that Acheson was more responsible for the Truman Doctrine than Harry Truman and the Marshall Plan than George Marshall. Although he developed anti-Communist views early in his political career, Acheson defended State Department employees accused during Senator Joseph McCarthy's anti-Communist investigations. Acheson persuaded Truman to dispatch aid to French forces in Indochina, but later counseled President Lyndon B. Johnson to negotiate for peace with North Vietnam.
Dean Acheson was born in Middletown, Connecticut. He was educated at Yale University (1912-15), where he became a member of the prestigious secret society, Scroll and Key, and Harvard Law School (1915-18). At the latter he became a protege of the leftist professor Felix Frankfurter, who got him a job in Washington (Perloff, 129-130.) He would became private secretary to the Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis (1919-21).
A supporter of the United States Democratic Party, Acheson worked for a law firm in Washington D.C. before Franklin Delano Roosevelt appointed him as Under-Secretary of the United States Treasury in 1933. (Both Roosevelt and Acheson had attended the prestigous Massachusetts prep school, Groton School -- Roosevelt '00, Acheson '11. At Groton, Acheson befriended the future Governor of New York, W. Averell Harriman) During the Second World War Acheson served as Assistant Secretary in the United States Department of State.
In 1945 Harry S. Truman selected Acheson as his Under Secretary of State. Over the next two years Acheson played an important role in devising both the Truman Doctrine and the European Recovery Program (ERP). Acheson believed that the best way to halt the spread of communism was by working with progressive forces in those countries in danger of revolution.
However, while Under Secretary he approved a $90 million loan to Poland, even though the American ambassador to that country, Arthur Bliss Lane, protested because of the Communist government's severe human rights abuses. To secure the loan, the Poles had retained Acheson's law firm which made over $50,000 on the deal (Wittmer 7.)
Donald Hiss, brother of Alger Hiss, was Acheson's law partner. In the State Department, Acheson helped Alger himself, as well as several other men later identified as spies or security risks (John Stewart Service, John Carter Vincent, Lauchlin Currie) to high positions. He promoted Service even after the FBI had caught him passing secrets to Communist agents.
Acheson was appointed Secretary of State in 1949. When Ambassador Lane heard that Acheson had been appointed Secretary of State, he said: "God help the United States" (qtd. in Perloff 130.) Acheson and George Marshall, Secretary of Defense, came under increasing attack from right-wing politicians who considered the two men to be soft on communism. Acheson became a byword to many Americans. On December 15, 1950, the Republicans in the House of Representatives resolved unanimously that he be removed from office (Perloff 130.)
In January of 1950 Acheson announced an American view of vital international interests, he excluded South Korea.
On February 9, 1950, Joseph McCarthy made a speech in Wheeling, West Virginia where he attacked Acheson as "a pompous diplomat in striped pants". He claimed that he had a list of 205 people in the State Department known to be members of the American Communist Party. McCarthy went on to argue that some of these people were passing secret information to the Soviet Union. He added: "The reason why we find ourselves in a position of impotency is not because the enemy has sent men to invade our shores, but rather because of the traitorous actions of those who have had all the benefits that the wealthiest nation on earth has had to offer - the finest homes, the finest college educations, and the finest jobs in Government we can give."
McCarthy had obtained his information from J. Edgar Hoover, the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). William Sullivan, one of Hoover's agents, later admitted that: "We were the ones who made the McCarthy hearings possible. We fed McCarthy all the material he was using."
Acheson also upset the right wing when he took the side of Harry S. Truman in his dispute with General Douglas MacArthur over the Korean War. Acheson and Truman wanted to limit the war to Korea whereas MacArthur called for the extension of the war to China. Joe McCarthy once again led the attack on Acheson: "With half a million Communists in Korea killing American men, Acheson says, 'Now let's be calm, let's do nothing'. It is like advising a man whose family is being killed not to take hasty action for fear he might alienate the affection of the murderers."
In April 1951, Truman removed MacArthur from his command of the United Nations forces in Korea. McCarthy called for Truman to be impeached and suggested that the president was drunk when he made the decision to fire MacArthur: "Truman is surrounded by the Jessups, the Achesons, the old Hiss crowd. Most of the tragic things are done at 1:30 and 2 o'clock in the morning when they've had time to get the President cheerful."
Acheson was the main target of McCarthy's anger as he believed Harry S. Truman was "essentially just as loyal as the average American". However, Truman was president "in name only because the Acheson group has almost hypnotic powers over him. We must impeach Acheson, the heart of the octopus."
Harry S. Truman decided not to run for re-election in 1952 and Acheson's close friend, Adlai Stevenson, was chosen as the Democratic Party candidate for the 1952 election. It was one of the dirtiest in history with Richard Milhous Nixon, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, leading the attack on Stevenson. Speaking in Indiana, Nixon described Stevenson as a man with a "Ph.D. from Dean Acheson's cowardly college of Communist containment."
Dwight D. Eisenhower and Nixon's campaign was a great success and in November they easily defeated Adlai Stevenson by 33,936,252 votes to 27,314,922. Disillusioned by the smear campaign, Acheson returned to his private law practice. But although his public career was over, his influence was not. Acheson's law offices were strategically located across Lafayette Park from the White House. He became an unofficial advisor to the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations. Nixon even had a phone installed in Acheson's winter home in Antigua (Perloff 130.) In 1964 he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Dean Acheson passed away at Sandy Spring, Maryland at the age of 78 in 1971.
Works
- Power and Diplomacy (1958)
- Morning and Noon (1965),
- Present at the Creation (1970)
- The Korean War (1971).
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Works cited
- Perloff, James. The Shadows of Power. Appleton: Western Islands,1988.
- Wittmer, Felix. "Freedom's Case Against Dean Acheson." American Mercury April 1952.
External links
- [http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAacheson.htm Acheson biography]
Acheson, Dean
Acheson, Dean
Acheson, Dean
Acheson, Dean
Acheson, Dean
Acheson, Dean
Acheson, Dean
Acheson, Dean
Acheson
Acheson, Dean
Acheson, Dean
Acheson, Dean
Acheson, Dean
1950s
----
Events and trends
The 1950s in Western society was marked with a sharp rise in the economy for the first time in almost 30 years and return to the 1920s-type consumer society built on credit and boom-times, as well as the the baby boom from returning GIs who went to college under the Montgomery G.I. Bill and settled in suburban America. Most of the internal conflicts that had developed in earlier decades like women's rights, civil rights, imperialism, and war were relatively suppressed or neglected during this time as a returning world from the brink hoped to see a more consistent way of life as opposed to liberalism and radicalism of the 1930s and 1940s. The effect of suppressing social problems in the 50s would backfire in the 60s with the counter-culture movement.
The 1950s were also marked with a rapid rise in conflict with the Eastern Bloc and the Soviet Union that would heighten the Cold War to an unprecedented level which would include the Arms Race, Space Race, McCarthyism, and Korean War. Stalin's death in 1953 left an enormous impact in Eastern Europe that forced the Soviet Union to create more liberal policies internally and externally. The rise of Suburbia as well as the growing conflict with the East are the two generally accepted reasons for the conservative domination of this decade.
Technology
- United States tests the first fusion bomb. See History of nuclear weapons
- Sputnik, the first man-made satellite, and thus the Sputnik crisis
- The De Havilland Comet enters service as the world's first jet airliner
- Charles Townes builds a maser in 1953 at Columbia University.
Science
- Urey-Miller experiment shows that under simulated conditions resembling those thought to have existed shortly after Earth first accreted, many of the basic organic molecules that form the building blocks of modern life are able to spontaneously form
- Francis Crick and James D. Watson discover the helical structure of DNA at the Cavendish Laboratory at the University of Cambridge
- Bruce Heezen discovers the Mid-Atlantic Ridge
- Polio vaccine
- The first organ transplants are done in Boston and Paris in 1954.
War, peace, and politics
- Korean War
- Red Scare, McCarthy Hearings
- Suez Crisis
- European Common Market founded.
- Warsaw pact founded.
- Most aboveground nuclear test explosions happened during this decade.
- The United States CIA orchestrated the overthrow of the Guatemalan government.
- Hungarian revolution of 1956 brutally suppressed by Soviet Union's troops.
- Fidel Castro gains power in Cuba.
- Mahmoud Abbas becomes involved in Palestinian politics in Qatar.
- Decolonization: Algeria, Vietnam, and elsewhere.
- Early history of the People's Republic of China, of the state of Israel, and of the Indonesian state.
Economics
- "Economic miracle" in West Germany and Italy.
Culture, religion
- Traditional pop music reaches its climax; early rock and roll music was embraced by teenagers/youth culture while generally dismissed or condemned by older generations.
- Brylcreem and other hair tonics have a period of popularity
- Television replaces radio as the dominant mass medium in industrialized countries.
- In the West, the generation traumatized by the Great Depression and World War II creates a culture with emphasis on normality and calm conformity.
- Juvenile delinquency said to be at unprecedented epidemic proportions in USA, though some see this era as relatively low in crime compared to today. Continuing poverty in some regions during recessions later on in this decade.
- Fairly high rates of unionization, government social spending, taxes, and the like in the US and European countries. Mostly liberal or moderate Western governments, though communism/Cold War play a role in reaction to, and within, domestic politics.
- Beatnik culture/ The Beat Generation
- Optimistic visions of semi-Utopian technological future including such devices as the flying car.
- The Day the Earth Stood Still hits movie theaters.
- Along with the appearance of the sentence Kilroy was here across the United States, graffiti as an art form develops, especially among urban African Americans; graffiti eventually becomes one of the four elements of hip hop
- Considerable racial tension with military and schools desegregation in the US, though controversy never truly erupts as later on in the 1960s.
- The Catcher in the Rye
- The Twilight Zone premiers as the first major science-fiction show.
Rise of evangelical Christianity including Youth for Christ (1943); the National Association of Evangelicals, the American Council of Christian Churces, the Billy Graham Evagelistic Association (1950), and the Campus Crusade for Christ (1951).
Christianity Today was first published in 1956. 1956 also marked the beginning of Bethany Fellowship, a small press that would grow to be a leading evangelical press.
- Carl Stuart Hamblen religious radio broadcaster.
Others
- Wartime rationing ends in the United Kingdom.
People
World leaders
- Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent (Canada)
- Prime Minister John Diefenbaker (Canada)
- Chairman Mao Zedong (People's Republic of China)
- President Chiang Kai-shek (Republic of China on Taiwan)
- President Gamal Abdel Nasser (Egypt)
- Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru (India)
- Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion (Israel)
- Emperor Hirohito (Japan)
- Pope Pius XII
- Pope John XXIII
- Taoiseach John A. Costello (Ireland)
- Taoiseach Eamon de Valera (Ireland)
- Taoiseach Sean Lemass (Ireland)
- Joseph Stalin (Soviet Union)
- Nikita Khrushchev (Soviet Union)
- King George VI (United Kingdom)
- Queen Elizabeth II (United Kingdom)
- Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill (United Kingdom)
- Prime Minister Sir Anthony Eden (United Kingdom)
- Prime Minister Harold Macmillan (United Kingdom)
- Prime Minister Robert Menzies (Australia)
- Prime Minister George Borg Olivier (Malta)
- President Harry S. Truman (United States)
- President Dwight D. Eisenhower (United States)
- Chancellor Konrad Adenauer (West Germany)
- President Josip Broz Tito (Yugoslavia)
Entertainers
- Desi Arnaz
- Abbott and Costello
- Paul Anka
- Lucille Ball
- Jack Benny
- Chuck Berry
- Humphrey Bogart
- Marlon Brando
- Maria Callas
- Dalida
- James Dean
- Bo Diddley
- Margot Fonteyn
- Ava Gardner
- The Goons
- Cary Grant
- Tony Hancock
- Audrey Hepburn
- Charlton Heston
- Alfred Hitchcock
- Buddy Holly
- Grace Kelly
- Ernie Kovacs
- Mario Lanza
- Jerry Lewis
- Dean Martin
- Groucho Marx
- Marilyn Monroe
- Paul Newman
- Laurence Olivier
- Elvis Presley
- George Reeves
- Little Richard
- James Stewart
- Gale Storm
- Jerry Lee Lewis
- Jacques Tati
- Elizabeth Taylor
- John Wayne
- Jack Webb
- Ed Wynn
Sports figures
- Alberto Ascari (Italian racing driver)
- Roger Bannister (English track and field athlete)
- Yogi Berra (American baseball player)
- Maureen Connolly (American tennis player)
- Colin Cowdrey (England cricketer)
- Juan Manuel Fangio (Argentinian racing driver)
- Neil Harvey (Australian cricketer)
- Gordie Howe (Canadian ice hockey player)
- Len Hutton (England cricketer)
- Rocky Marciano (American boxer)
- Stanley Matthews (English soccer player)
- Willie Mays (American baseball player)
- Ferenc Puskás (Hungarian soccer player)
- Maurice Richard (Canadian ice hockey player)
- Sugar Ray Robinson (American boxer)
- Bill Russell (American basketball player)
- Gary Sobers (West Indies cricketer)
- Brian Statham (England cricketer)
- Frank Tyson (England cricketer)
- Frank Worrell (West Indies cricketer)
- Lev Yashin (Russian soccer player)
See also
- United States in the 1950s
- List of rock and roll albums in the 1950s
External links
- [http://www.fiftiesweb.com The FiftiesWeb]
- [http://vlib.iue.it/history/USA/ERAS/20TH/1950s.html WWW-VL: 1950s History]
Category:1950s
ko:1950년대
ja:1950年代
simple:1950s
1782
1782 was a common year starting on Tuesday (see link for calendar).
Events
- January 7 - The first American commercial bank opens (Bank of North America).
- January 15 - Superintendent of Finance Robert Morris goes before the U.S. Congress to recommend establishment of a national | | |
