The United States Congress is made up of two chambers the House of Representatives and the Senate. All together their are 485 congress people that come together to alter current laws or suggest new legislation. They are required to meet once per year on January 3 by the US Constitution, but the come together much more often than that. Their sessions can last months if the topic is very controversial. In order to make new legislation, the Congress has to go through a long process of getting a majority in the house as well as the Senate, and even after all that the President still has to approve of the bill in question. US legislation is slow and at times painfully inefficient. An example of this is the Healthcare bill that Barack Obama successfully passed in during his first term as President. He had to fight in order to get the reform passed, persuade the members of Congress that his bill should be considered, and after that the Supreme Court almost ruled that the legislation was unconstitutional. The US Congress is a headache on its best day.
The system is set up to creat gridlock, create controversy, and allow a small group of people to prevent the majority from passing laws that they see fit to pass. The government of the United States is made of politicians that spend more time in heated debate and childish arguments than actually working on improving the country. And it works.
This time where nothing appears to be happening is, for me, where the true beauty of the system comes out. While two sides sit on their high horses going back and forth on what the “founding father’s” would have wanted, an environment is created where only the best laws are allowed to leave the war ground altered. The people can rest assure that the legislators are giving them only the best of the best in terms of what laws are passed. If the laws were no good, their would not be so much effort to get them passed. The US Congress may be frustrating, but it has worked for over 200 years. We must have done something right.
The British have a similar system, but their are some key differences. The British Parliament is made up of two chambers, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Overall between the two there are more than 650 members. They function in much the same way as the American Congress, making laws and altering others. They meet in sessions that usually last one year until the next session starts. This usually starts in the month of November.
In comparison to the US Congress, British Parliaments biggest difference is the speed in which things can be done. In the US, a two party system keeps one side from doing whatever they want, but Parliament runs for the most part through one party. This party controls what is discussed and what goes on when they are in session. If major change is required, it is much easier to get it done in Parliament.
Another argument is that because of the quick turn over in parliament because of its frequent elections creates a constant tension in the system. I would argue that even though this is true is does not make it more inefficiant. The frequent elections allow for democracy to take a stronger hold in government. With one party running the country’s legislature, quick important decisions can be made for the betterment of the people.
Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses. Another major force that effects Parliament and not the US Congress is the European Union (EU). One major hinderence to the British Parliament is the EU and its rules that Parliament has to comply with. Not only do they have to deal with the political issues in their own country, but also the rules and politics decided on by 26 other countries. Where as Congress only has to deal with the tension created by themselves.
The US Congress has its issues, and so does Parliament. What The US can take away from examining the British Parliament is that even though the checks that create gridlock can be a pain to deal with, they ultimately bring the best out of legislature. Congress should be working to improve itself as much as it can, and there is a lot that can be learned from British Parliament.
Without taking the British Parliament into account, the US Congress is incredibly inefficient. Members of both houses debate endlessly over laws that may or may not be beneficial to the population. Assuming that each Congressman or woman is debating such bills in order to benefit the greater constituency is grossly generous. As humans, let alone politicians, each has expectations to fulfill in order to keep a job or a party position. And don’t forget personal ego. Now, as for the silver lining of this inefficiency being the passing of only the “best pieces of legislature” — as deemed by whom?? Assuming they’re the best, simply because they’re the only seems a bit premature.
Saying that the US Congress is sustainable because it has worked for the past 200 years is, as well, rather premature……. 200 years is a very, very small amount of time when compared with the vast world timeline. The ancient empires lasted for thousands of years and still, in the end, proved to be unsustainable.