Political comparison between Uk and Japan
Answers
Answer:
the surface, the British and Japanese parliamentary systems are similar, but a closer examination reveals many differences between them. The Tokyo Foundation held a symposium aimed at stimulating fruitful discussions on the nature of the British parliamentary system and on how to improve governance in Japan.
* * *
The Rt Hon Lord Cunningham of Felling gave a keynote lecture. He prefaced his lecture by saying that his account of the British parliamentary system would explain how Parliament works in practice, rather than in theory. Below is a summary of his speech.
A23_01.jpg
How the British Parliamentary System Works in Practice
The United Kingdom's Parliament is a bicameral legislature, consisting of the House of Commons (the lower chamber, which is supreme) and the House of Lords (the upper chamber). The House of Commons is made up of approximately 650 Members of Parliament (MPs), who are directly elected by voters. Traditionally, the British government is formed by the political party that occupies a majority of seats in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (the head of government) must be an MP, that is, an elected representative sitting in the House of Commons. The government controls the legislative program that will be put before Parliament through the use of standing committees. The government thus controls the timing of bills, in addition to the raising of taxes and the authorization of public expenditures. These proceedings are a matter of public record: they are broadcast and reported on widely.
The business of Parliament proceeds by consent. The opposition parties (currently the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrat Party, and a number of small parties) hold discussions with the government about its legislative program and timetable. The opposition could bring the government's timetable to a grinding halt through filibustering, but agreement on how the timetable will proceed is reached by the "whips." The whips are the party managers, responsible for the discipline of their parliamentary party and its coherence, particularly in regard to voting on bills. The opposition has some say in how time is allotted, as do backbench MPs (members of the House of Commons who are not part of the various departmental ministerial teams sitting on the front benches).
The government will use up most of the time available during each sitting of Parliament, but a certain amount of time ("supply days") is reserved for opposition parties to choose subjects for debate. In addition, a certain amount of time is given over to "private members" (that is, backbench MPs) to debate issues of importance to them. At the end of each day's session, there is an adjournment debate, during which individual MPs can raise a subject for debate and the relevant minister has to be available to answer questions.
In Parliament there are also occasions for "free votes." These arise on issues of conscience for which no whipping takes place. In free votes, members are permitted to express their personal views, which may not be consistent with the platform of their party. Thus, there is no organization of the outcome of the vote. Issues related to fox hunting, abortion, and euthanasia have recently been subject to free votes.
A23_02.jpg
Lord Cunningham of Felling
The House of Lords, the upper chamber, is made up of approximately 740 members, over 600 of whom are appointed "life peers." A total of 26 bishops of the Church of England and 23 Law Lords also sit in the House of Lords, along with 90 or so "hereditary peers." Debates and votes in the House of Lords are usually attended by 300 to 400 members.
The powers of the House of Lords are limited: it has no power over the government's budget and expenditures. Roughly one in three bills put before Parliament originate in the House of Lords. The chamber can scrutinize, delay, and amend legislation, but does not have the right to outright reject legislation that has passed the House of Commons. This restriction stems from the Parliament Acts, which legally enshrine the supremacy of the House of Commons over the House of Lords. No matter what happens in debates in the House of Lords, the will of the House of Commons prevails unless the lower chamber decides to accept amendments proposed by the upper chamber.
Need for Constitutional Reform
As the United Kingdom's constitution is unwritten, the conventions of Parliament are not set in statutory form. One fundamental decision that has endured into the twenty-first century is the Salisbury Convention, which dates from 1945, when the House of Lords was made up of approximately 900 hereditary peers. Lord Salisbury, the leader of Conservative Party in the House of Lords, decided it would be wrong in principal for the upper chamber to reject the programs of the Committee on Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisherie