EU Public Affairs Monitor - 15/12/08

EIB gets an extra €30bn for infrastructure projects
"Funds will be directed primarily towards into new member states. The European Investment Bank (EIB) will spend an extra €30 billion on projects over the next two years following an agreement at last week's meeting of EU finance minister to increase the bank's capital.

The bank's reserves were increased from €67bn to €232bn to allow continued funding of current projects and financing of future projects. The immediate effect will be extra money during 2009-10 for the bank's main project areas." [EuropeanVoice]

US Sues Sony Music Over Children's Online Privacy
"Sony Music Entertainment was sued on Wednesday by the U.S. government, which claimed the music company violated federal rules aimed at protecting the online privacy of children. Sony Music improperly accepted registrations on its music Web sites from users who were under 13, without obtaining consent from their parents, according to the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan." [BillBoard]

Canadian Copyright Board Raises Tax
"The Canadian Copyright Board has announced it will raise the tax on blank compact discs to 29¢ (US$0.23), a 38% increase. Previously the tariff on blank recordable CDs was 21¢ (US$0.1679).

The tariff is collected on behalf of the Canadian Private Copying Collective, an organization formed in 1999 and created to collect money that compensates musicians and stakeholders for having their music copied by individuals. The decision leaves the rate for audio cassettes at 24¢
The board says there were two reasons for the increase.

“First, increased mechanical licence royalties, coupled with the elimination of container deductions and free goods allowances in the calculation of the performers' and makers' remuneration, greatly add to our estimation of the total remuneration per prerecorded CD," the board said in a report. "Second, the use of compression technology raises from 15 to 18.4 the average number of tracks copied on a blank CD used to copy music."" [BillBoard]

Heron's Eye: 31/10/08

Mr Darling, the master of contortion 31/10/08
Steve Richards highlights the lack of economic philosophy within New Labour, examining why this is the case and its effects on parliamentary strategy. [Independent]

Smith orders inquiry into MI5 and CIA torture claims 31/10/08
“Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, has asked the attorney general to investigate possible "criminal wrongdoing" by the MI5 and the CIA over its treatment of a British resident held in Guantánamo Bay, it was revealed tonight.

The dramatic development over allegations of collusion in torture and inhuman treatment follows a high court judgment which found that an MI5 officer participated in the unlawful interrogation of Binyam Mohamed. The MI5 officer interrogated Mohamed while he was being held in Pakistan in 2002.” [Guardian]

Straw asked to pardon executed witches 31/10/08
“A petition calling for the posthumous pardon of women and men who were executed as witches in Britain will be presented to the justice secretary, Jack Straw, today.

Campaigners hope evidence of eight grave "miscarriages of justice" will persuade him to take action.” [Guardian]

BBC battles to calm prank storm 31/10/08
"The BBC attempted last night to draw the poison from another calamitous week by taking the unprecedented step of banning its highest paid star for three months, and accepting the resignation of one of its most senior and best-loved executives." [Guardian]

Click here to read more information on Mr Grimsdale, King Heron and Mobius

In the Loop: 30/09/08

Germans gives peeking Google one in the eye: Schleswig-Holstein's answer is NEIN!
30th September 2008
"The town of Molfsee near Kiel in the north-western German state of Schleswig-Holstein doesn't want to be filmed by Google for its Street View program, a service that provides 360-degrees street level images via Google Maps.

The leader of the Christian Democratic Union on the town council told the Lübecker Nachrichten that "we are not going to let this happen". The 5,000 inhabitants find the project "extremely alarming" as criminals can plan break-ins more easily. Germany's Federal Commissioner for Data Protection also has major misgivings about Google's plans, according to Der Spiegel." [TheRegister]

Sky told to hand over footy and film rights: Rivals to get access at fair price
Posted in Government, 30th September 2008
"The UK's media regulator Ofcom has told Sky it should offer to sell rights to football games and Hollywood films to other broadcasters at a fair price.

The investigation into pay TV was begun after complaints were made by BT, Virgin, Setanta and Top Up TV. Ofcom reckons that consumers make their choices of which service to go with based on content not the features of different platforms. Big films and live Premiership games are a big draw for viewers and Sky has "market power" in these areas." [TheRegister]

Tories would decentralise NHS IT: Want patient confidence and reined-in data 30/09/08
"An incoming Conservative government would decentralise health service computing and extend competition between suppliers, according to a plan released at its party conference.

The party's NHS Improvement Plan, released on 29 September 2008 by shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley, says the party will replace "Labour's centrally determined and unresponsive national IT system."" [TheRegister]

Secret Service camera bought on eBay: Nikon camera, good nick, includes secret files 30th September 2008
"Today's government data loss shenanigan is a repeat performance of that old favourite - flogging off old kit containing secret information to a random punter through online tat bazaar eBay.

An unnamed 28-year-old delivery man from Hemel Hempstead bought a Nikon Coolpix camera for £17 on eBay. But when he returned from his holiday and downloaded the contents of the camera he found pictures of rocket launchers, log-in details for the Secret Service's encrypted remote computer network marked Top Secret and a hand-drawn diagram linking different, named al-Qaeda cells including individual names and occupations." [TheRegister]

US Congress rubberstamps IP enforcement bill: DoJ suits out, White House czar in 29/09/08
The US House of Representatives on Sunday passed a bill heavily backed by the recording industry that would create an intellectual property enforcement czar position in the White House as well as significantly increase penalties for IP infringement.

The bill passed unanimously through the Senate on Friday after being stripped of a controversial provision that would allow the US Department of Justice to file civil suits against suspected copyright violators on behalf of copyright holders. [TheRegister]

Click here to read more information on Mr Grimsdale, King Heron and Mobius

Heron's Eye: 03/08/08

'There's no one to tackle Salmond'

Paul Kelbie on the dearth of candidates with the right attributes in the Scottish Labour Party’s leadership contest. [Guardian]

Miliband: Has he got what it takes to be PM?

Gaby Hinsliff, political editor of the Observer analyses deeply David Miliband’s political life. [Guardian]

Pig Ignorant Foreign Secretaries R Us

Merkin on Foreign Secretaries being poorly briefed. [BloggersOnTheRun]

There is no doubt about it, this is a full-frontal assault

Andrew Rawnsley continues the media’s 'waping' of Machiavellian analysis/soap story editorial. [Guardian]

David Miliband 'duped' over US rendition

David Miliband was today accused of letting himself be "duped by the US on a colossal scale" following the publication of new claims about the interrogation of terrorist suspects on UK territory. [Guardian]

Boris Johnson's approach to youth crime is good news

Dave Hill on Mr Johnson’s proactive approach to youth crime. [Guardian]

Did Team Boris delete Ken’s 100 days of achievements?

Recess Monkey on the disappearance of a description of Ken Livingstone’s first hundred days in office from the GLA’s media centre. [RecessMonkey]

The government is right - we need to lock up more offenders

The streets feel safe as a result of a lot of tough talkers going about the place? Westminster’s David Hanson MP, Minister of State for Justice talks on the need to justify Cube and filling it with inmates. Worth reading merely for the CIF commentary afterwards. [Guardian]

Below are two comments I included on the discussion forum:

I wish the people in charge saw that pulling the weeds from the root is a more effective than merely pruning the leaves.

Too many people talk about the need to increase prison places to fit an ever growing population but they rarely raise the need to spend money on making sure that youths dont get to the stage where they are caged before they are even adults.

I heard a figure saying that to convict somebody costs around £120,000 and £80,000 per year to keep a person incarcerated. Now why havent frothing right wing groups such as the Taxpayer Alliance not directed their venom at such subjects of criticism? It seems to me that even one person bypassing prison through whatever intervention could allow for tax money to be spent on more productive things. Improved housing? New school facilities? New railways or roads? Less taxes? An extra trident missile? Or maybe punishment, prevention and enforcement is just too profitable?

Just remembered the mid 90s film Cube, where a group of people wake up in a mysterious building set with traps with no reason why they were there, no idea how to escape and what the purpose of the Cube was.

I found some quotes from the film, which may have some parallels with the article:

"There is no conspiracy. Nobody is in charge. It's a headless blunder operating under the illusion of a master plan. "

"Do you think somebody would go to all the trouble to build this thing if you could just walk out? "

"This is an accident, a forgotten, perpetual public works project. You think anybody wants to ask questions? All they want is a clear conscience and a fat paycheck. "

Quentin: "But why put people in it?"

Worth: "Because it's here. You have to use it, or you admit that it's pointless."

Quentin: "But it *is* pointless."

Worth: "Quentin... that's my point. "

7/7 memorial: Why have we become so poor at building these monuments?

Michael White on the disappointing quality of memorials. [Guardian]

Pakistan denies ISI behind Indian embassy attack

Pakistan's government said Friday it needs to purge Taliban sympathizers from the country's main intelligence agency but angrily denied a report that the agency helped plan a bombing that killed at least 41 in Afghanistan. [AP]

Right strategy, wrong candidate?

Chuck Todd, Political Director, NBC News provides an insight into positive and negative campaigning tactics when discussing the USA elections. [MSNBCNews]

Time to stop criticising China - we've already come so far

Lijia Zhang on how China has been making social progress in the last couple of years. A large CIF discussion follows. [Guardian]

Click here to read more information on Mr Grimsdale, King Heron and Mobius

US Public Affairs - 30/06/09

Music Performers In US Policy Fight For Payment From Broadcasters

"Performance-rights groups and broadcasters went head-to-head Wednesday as the two sides testified before the United States Congress as to whether conventional radio broadcasters should pay performance musicians if the broadcasters play their music.

US lawmakers have introduced The Performance Rights Act in both the House and the Senate in an effort to make sure performing artists are compensated when their sound recordings are played over the radio. Radio stations pay songwriters in the US for the right to broadcast, but not performers. Satellite radio and internet radio, as well as cable companies, do pay for the same right." [IPWatch]

How Do Their Attitudes Towards Founding And History Affect Different Democracies?

This essay aims to compare how democracies are affected from a revolutionary aspect, such as when democracies were founded and then from an evolutionary aspect, where events result in a shift in democratic structure. It will focus on France and the United States of America, two of the earliest modern democracies, which were created in the eighteenth century and greatly informed by their differing histories of political upheaval and revolution. In order to make these cases the nature of the uprisings in the eighteenth century, their alternative effects shall be looked at, as well an analysis of more recent events in the nineteenth and twentieth century.

The result of the French Revolution of 1789 has been a flitting between constitutional monarchy,[1] dictatorship[2] and various republics[3], as well as German occupation during the Second World War. The French Revolution was unique in that it, as Hague, Harrop and Breslin argue “swept away medieval structures of power and accelerated the creation of modern nation-states which dominate the contemporary world”. [4] It also helped to speed up major economic and political growth through removing the control that the aristocracy and church held over the peasantry, which in turn laid the groundwork for more representative, democratic government. However, France’s revolution was not a stable one. They also point out that “once the common enemy has been removed, the glue dissolves”[5], which helps to explain why the revolution didn’t result in stability and why France’s political system seems to swing between various forms of democracy, and authoritarian rule.

Charles De Gaulle’s Fifth Republic (1958 onwards) was an attempt to correct the weaknesses of the Third and Fourth Republics, as the executive and the National Assembly’s ability to get bogged down by petty squabbles left it both weak and unrepresentative. For example, in the twelve years of the Fourth Republic there were 25 different governments, as political infighting made it impossible to meter out any stable coalition, with the president spending much of his time trying to hold together the parliament. Wright claims the difficulty in parliament choosing a president meant that “they were seen as the creatures and prisoners of the members of parliament who had elected them and who, when choosing the president, had sought to avoid the election of a strong personality – a man who might prove a danger both to the privileges and prerogatives of parliament and to the republic itself”[6]. For example, it took Rene Cote, the last president of the Fourth Republic thirteen ballots in order to get elected, a waste of time and a battering to any political leader’s prestige. It is also put across that any “presidential power was exercised only so long as it was tolerated by parliament and the government”.[7]

These factors resulted in France’s inability to deal effectively with any major events, such as uprisings in Indochina (1954) and Algeria (1956). This is highlighted by Roskin who points out that people saw the Fourth Republic as “unable to settle the ghastly Algerian War”[8] and views that “if a premier was too effective, other politicians sometimes vote against him out of resentment”[9]. To prove this he cites Pierre Mendes’ dismissal from the National Assembly as being an example of jealousy over his success at dealing with the Indochina uprising. Williams proposes that as a result of all this infighting government even became unrepresentative, operating “with no reference to the general public”.[10]

On the other hand, Wright does highlight how the Fourth Republic Presidents did exercise more authority than their predecessors in the Third Republic, asserting that “both were always intimately involved in the delicate negotiations which preceded the formation of any new government and marshalling parliamentary support for that government once it presented itself to the Assembly for investiture.”[11] He also highlights that “a determined president could try to block proposals and wait for the ineluctable collapse of the ministry: the succeeding prime minister might prove more sympathetic or more pliable”,[12] but of course the time it would take to achieve this would be extremely detrimental.

America initially existed as a loose collection of colonies, principally in New England, in the North and the Southern states, with different rules and freedoms handed by the “motherland”, England. The United States formed following the War of Independence was a response to England taxing the colonies without any form of representation. It had difficulties trying to maintain the confederation, as these governments had previously existed alongside and independently of each other, with Alex De Tocqueville noticing that “each of them, having always had a separate existence and a government within its control, had created peculiar interests”. [13] The constitution had to recognise that the states individual control was the greatest priority, which De Tocqueville agreed with, noting that “social resources would be more wisely and judiciously employed, if the administration of the whole country were concentrated in one pair of hands. But the political advantages derived by the Americans from a system of decentralisation would make me prefer that to the opposite system”.[14] He also felt that America is right to allow states to rule but leave administering to a central authority.

On the other hand, the writers of the revised American Constitution in 1787 had to include a backbone of central government or the states would be paralysed. The peace resulting from independence highlighted the defects in the original 1781 legislation. The united state had disintegrated, leaving each colony to become an independent state, which left America not able to find “resources sufficient to stand up to the Indian tribes or to pay the interest on debts contracted during the War of Independence”.[15] As a result of these flaws the Union was given the exclusive rights of making war and peace, concluding commercial treaties, levying armies and equipping fleets, as well as maintaining currency and the post office.

The President of America is restricted domestically by congress. Hague, Harrop, and Breslin feel that “the president seeks to influence Congress but cannot dictate to it, Presidential power is in essence the power to persuade.” As mentioned earlier, in the Fourth Republic of France the president had similar difficulties, but to an even greater extent. On the other hand, Wright saw that the Fifth Republic allowed Charles Gaulle (and his successors) “to be above politics and politicians”[16] and control domestic policy. The president is seen as being more represented and because of the weakened position of the French Parliament, backed up by Roskin’s claim that ministers were “reduced to messenger boys”.[17] Although the American President is the most representative member of government he is weaker than France because of the strength of congress and the federal structure which exists in America.

The American constitution unlike the French one which has been revised frequently, has been almost set in stone, Roskin feels that “the Americans regard their Constitution with an almost religious awe, not to be touched in its basic provisions, the French…have seen constitutions come and go and are not adverse to rewriting the basic rules of their political game every few decades.”[18] However, there have been some minor changes, “from the New Deal onwards, the American public looked to the White House rather than Congress for political leadership.”[19] asserts Hague, Harrop, and Breslin, also pointing out how there was a change back towards Congress from the 1970s, a “reaction to the so-called ‘imperial’ presidency”[20] .

In many ways the democracies of America and France are similar, with both presidents being universally elected and them being able to choose the cabinet. However, there are marked differences partly as a result of their democratic founding, such as whether it was through uprising against and internal or external enemy and events which led to either a movement or shift in presidential influence, such as the Algerian crisis or the New Deal. On the other hand, there are other factors which could have as strong a bearing on how these democracies have existed, such as geography. The size of the nation could quite easily help to explain why federalism exists in the United States and not France. Similarly, America’s ability to stay politically stable may be because it has not been in such proximity with aggressive nations as France.

This essay was written by Jonathan McHugh in April 2004

---

[1] Louis XVI (1791-49) and the Bourbon Restoration (1815-71)

[2] Napoleon (1804-15) and Napoleon III (1852-71)

[3] First Republic (1792-1804), Second Republic (1848), Third Republic (1871-1940), Fourth Republic (1944-58), and Fifth Republic (from 1958)

[4] Hague, Rod; Harrop, Martin and Breslin, Shaun Comparative Government And Politics: An Introduction (Third Edition) (Macmillan, 1992), p76-7, p316

[5] Hague, Rod; Harrop, Martin and Breslin, Shaun Comparative Government And Politics: An Introduction (Third Edition) (Macmillan, 1992), p76-7

[6] Wright, Vincent The Government And Politics Of France (Hutchinson, 1984) p20-23

[7] Ibid. p22

[8] Roskin, Michael J Countries And Concepts: An Introduction To Comparative Government (Prentice-Hall, 1982), p91.

[9] Ibid., p91

[10] Williams Philip M The French Parliament (George Allen And Unwin, 1968) p114

[11] Wright, Vincent The Government And Politics Of France (Hutchinson, 1984) p22

[12] Ibid. p22

[13] Alexis De Tocqueville Democracy In America (Translated By Lawrence, George Edited By Mayer, J.P. Doubleday Anchor (originally 1840), 1969). P82, p93, p112, p113

[14] Roskin, Michael J Countries And Concepts: An Introduction To Comparative Government (Prentice-Hall, 1982). p93

[15] Ibid. p113

[16] Wright, Vincent The Government And Politics Of France (Hutchinson, 1984). p23

[17] Roskin, Michael J Countries And Concepts: An Introduction To Comparative Government (Prentice-Hall, 1982), p91, p93

[18] Ibid. p91

[19] Hague, Rod; Harrop, Martin and Breslin, Shaun Comparative Government And Politics: An Introduction (Third Edition) (Macmillan, 1992), p300

[20] Ibid. p300

Assess the Relative Merits of the French and American Presidential Systems

The French and American Presidency both hold similar positions and roles. For example, both are Head of State, Chief of Executive, Chief Diplomat, as well as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. In order to evaluate the relative merits of these Presidential systems we are going to evaluate how much each president is able to employ for each position and how effective they are at doing so. To do this the differences in their constitutions have to be examined. For example, the American Constitution attempts to restrict the President in order to encourage stability and prevent abuses of control. On the other hand, in France the Fifth Republic’s Constitution reinforces the authority of the President so that policies can be put through effectively in the National Assembly.

The Fourth Republic was dogged by a weak executive, with the National Assembly constantly getting bogged down by petty squabbles, leaving it both weak and unrepresentative. For example, in the twelve years of the Fourth Republic there were 25 different governments, as political infighting made it impossible to meter out any stable coalition, with the president spending much of his time trying to hold together the parliament. Wright claims the difficulty in parliament choosing a president meant that “they were seen as the creatures and prisoners of the members of parliament who had elected them and who, when choosing the president, had sought to avoid the election of a strong personality – a man who might prove a danger both to the privileges and prerogatives of parliament and to the republic itself”[1]. For example, it took Rene Cote, the last president of the Fourth Republic thirteen ballots in order to get elected, a waste of time and a battering to any political leader’s prestige. It is also put across that any “presidential power was exercised only so long as it was tolerated by parliament and the government”.[2]

These factors resulted in France’s inability to deal effectively with any major events, such as the uprisings in Indochina (1954) and Algeria (1956). This is highlighted by Roskin who points out that people saw the Fourth Republic as “unable to settle the ghastly Algerian War”[3] and views that “if a premier was too effective, other politicians sometimes vote against him out of resentment”[4]. To prove this he cites Pierre Mendes’ dismissal from the National Assembly as being an example of jealousy over his success at dealing with the Indochina uprising. Williams proposes that as a result of all this infighting government even became unrepresentative, operating “with no reference to the general public”.[5]

The 1958 Constitution of the Fifth Republic was created in order to readdress these major flaws in French politics. Charles de Gaulle, the first President of the Fifth Republic was given new powers which enabled him to appoint and dismiss the prime minister and ministers without consultation. Similarly, the President was solely responsible for the Council of Ministers, the backbone of French bureaucracy and the key positions in the Judiciary. Successive Presidents have been able to exploit their influence, described by some observers as an “elected monarch”, with Wright suggesting that the office has “been much more powerful, more interventionist and more political than the constitutional texts appear to imply…in order to increase the scope of each of their functions”.[6]

The constitutional reforms appear to have succeeded in their aims. France is no longer the subject of international derision that she was in 1958 and the public is content, with Wright asserting that there is “a high level of satisfaction with the regime.”[7] However, the most important success of the Presidential reforms has been its stability. Prime ministers now enjoy longer periods of office and parliament is now prepared to work with the President. Even the army, something once described as “the state within the state”[8] during the previous regime has now been “reduced to silent obedience to the civil authorities.”[9] The President, unlike before is now the major political focus within France. Actions such as de Gaulle’s devaluation of the Franc in 1968 or Pompidou’s extensive industrial policy could not have happened without these new powers.

These reforms are not perfect however. For example, even though the President is able to dissolve the National Assembly constitutional checks result in him being only able to do it for only a couple months and only once a year. The French President is constantly constrained by time because of the high level of public ceremonies and political management. For example, if the French President attempted to get involved in every detail of legislation he would end up failing to guide sufficient policy. If for whatever reason the President was engaged, in the absence of the leadership the unguided ministers would most likely display “the sense of and purpose of freshly decapitated chickens”,[10] as Wright puts it. On the contrary, a President who failed to get involved in the bureaucracy would be held hostage to the “overloaded, defective and inefficient”[11] civil service, resulting in the President’s requests not fully being implemented.

There are other restrictions that have a more significant ability to influence the President and his action. Wright argues that France has “different ‘unofficial’ types of power”.[12] For instance, it was a small group of communist-led workers, grouped in closed shops, who shut down the port of Le Havre for many weeks and who, on several occasions between 1975 and 1977 brought the Paris press to a standstill. Increasing EU integration over political, economic and even cultural matters is decreasing the President’s a scope of autonomy. For instance, the President has relatively little influence over the Euro compared to what he did with the Franc.

The roles and power are far more complicated for the American President. The Constitution of 1787 was created in order to ensure that no man or state had too much control over the Federation, whilst simultaneously ensuring that the President had enough power to defend the country in times of war. Consequentially the President and Congress are constantly at odds with each other. Wilson summarises it by mentioning that “no policy, domestic or foreign, can be maintained effectively by a President without the approval of Congress in the form of laws and money; and second, that there is no way under our Constitution for a President to force Congress to pass a law or spend money against its will”.[13] The complexities of the Constitution mean that no single centre of power can act alone in restraining the President. They form a close network which can be very strong against unruly Presidential actions. However, as Rossiter points out, these rules are not designed to paralyse him, merely to reinforce his boundaries, “if he cannot judge the limits of his power, he cannot call upon its strength. If he cannot sense the possible, he will exhaust himself attempting the impossible”.[14] In the example Rossiter gave the public was in uproar arising from the seizure of the steel mills, eventually forcing Truman to back down in 1952. In order to balance all these pressure groups the President is most likely to “dissipate all his time, energy, and capacity for leadership”,[15] to an even greater extent than the French Presidency, as he has to deal with many aforementioned groups.

The President does still hold some significant control. For instance, Wilson highlights how Carter and Reagan selected most of the federal judges now on the bench, stamping their political philosophies on the courts. Rossiter raises an interesting point when it comes to the President’s role as representative of the people. He highlights how despite lacking a Congressional majority, a President with popular support is “expected by the country, and therefore by Congress, to turn his politics into law”.[16] However, as he points out later it is “only if he uses it in ways they understand and approve, which generally means ways that are fair, dignified, traditional, and familiar. He can lead public opinion, but only as far as public opinion is willing to go”.[17]

The Constitution gives significant powers to the President in terms of international affairs. Congress relaxes its bite in times of war, believing that any conflicts would be distracting and counterproductive. Truman went far enough to suggest that in terms of foreign policy the Presidency forms “an aggregate of power that would have made Caesar or Genghis Khan or Napoleon bite his nails with envy”,[18] reiterating it by claiming that “no man or combination of men in the United States can muster up so quickly and authoritatively the troops, experts, food, money, loans, equipment, medical supplies, and moral support that may be needed in a disaster”.[19] Wilson even went so far as to call it an “Imperial Presidency”.[20] In order to highlight the President’s strength he shows how Kennedy and Johnson were able to send American troops to intervene in Vietnam. Hamilton argues that as Chief Diplomat the President has great authority, suggesting in regard to Eisenhower “the President has repeatedly committed the nation to decisive attitudes and actions abroad, more than to war itself…a stubborn President is hard to budge, a crusading President is hard to thwart”.[21] Even though Congress is required to rubber stamp any wars, the President’s position is paramount with foreign policy. This is, as Rossiter puts it, partly because the President’s short-term actions create long-range consequences.

As Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy the President has control of maintaining the forces and making key decisions, such as whether or not to deploy nuclear missiles. Rossiter cites how this role can create a lot of flexibility in periods of war through ginger reinterpretations of the role, such as Roosevelt’s evacuation of Japanese citizens during WWII. Infact, he even goes so far as to claim that Congress is “more likely to needle the President for inactivity and timidity than to accuse him of acting too swiftly.”[22]

However, the Presidency does still have problems associated with this degree of power abroad. As Commander In Chief he supervises the forces and is “accountable to the people, Congress and history for the nation’s readiness to meet an enemy assault”.[23] The President still has to make treaties with the Senate and they have stood up to the President on major issues. For example, Carter’s anti-arms limitation treaty with the Soviets was blocked by the Senate and Reagan was never allowed to test anti-satellite weapons.

Both nations constitutions have succeed in their respective roles. The French have a strong Presidency which maintains order, whereas the American model favours stability and independence to perfect efficiency but still empowers the President on the world stage. Domestically, France’s President is far more powerful. America’s domestic political framework is generally too complex to implement bold policies that the French have previously initiated. However, France’s growing integration with Europe should clip the President’s wings both domestically and internationally, as he will have to follow a more conformist policy in the future. Internationally America is politically, militarily and economically superior. As a result it would have been impossible for France’s President to have (and have gotten away with) invading Iraq despite the international communities loud disapproval.

This article was written by Jonathan McHugh in March 2004

---

[1] Wright, Vincent The Government And Politics Of France (Hutchinson, 1984) p20-23

[2] Ibid. p22

[3] Roskin, Michael J Countries and Concepts: An Introduction to Comparative Government (Prentice-Hall, 1982), p91.

[4] Ibid. p91

[5] Williams Philip M The French Parliament (George Allen And Unwin, 1968) p114

[6] Wright, Vincent The Government And Politics Of France (Hutchinson, 1984) p28

[7] Ibid. p293

[8] Ibid. p293

[9] Ibid. p293

[10] Wright, Vincent the Government and Politics of France (Hutchinson, 1984). p295

[11] Ibid. p295

[12] Ibid. p298

[13] Wilson, James American Government (DC Heath and Company, 1989) p36

[14] Rossiter, Clinton The American Presidency (Hamish Hamilton, 1957). p36

[15] Ibid. p41

[16] Ibid. p47

[17] Ibid. p48

[18] Rossiter, Clinton The American Presidency (Hamish Hamilton, 1957). p16

[19] Ibid. p20

[20] Wilson, James American Government (DC Heath and Company, 1989) p315

[21] Rossiter, Clinton The American Presidency (Hamish Hamilton, 1957). p10

[22] Rossiter, Clinton The American Presidency (Hamish Hamilton, 1957). p13

[23] Ibid. p11