Plan:
1. Introduction.
2. The main part:
a) a system of power — what is it ?
b) the political system of Great Britain;
c) the comparison of British and Ukrainian politicalsystems.
3. Summary.
Introduction
The State Systemofanynation is not an artificial creation ofsome genius or simply the embodiment of different rational schemes. It isnothing else but a work of many centuries, a product of a national spirit, apolitical mentality and the consciousness of people.
I have chosen the topic because of its obvious importance.Ukraine is building a sovereign state and it is encounteing a lot of problems.Ukraine is suffering an overall deep crisis, trying to set herself free from the persistent inheritanceof totalitarianism preying upon economic, politic, national self-consciousness.There is no universally efficient remedy to help the Ukrainian society out ofthis grave condition. The process of recovery will be long and arduous.Moreover, the country’s eventual deliverance from totalitarian inheritance andits harmonious entry into civilized world community remain for that matter,hardly practicable at all, unless political culture is humanized, and politicaleducation of such a kind propagated that would help society overcome thebackwardness, the pre-modernity of prevailing visions of justice, democracy,law and order, and the relationship of the individual and the state.
It is quite clear that in the process of democracyformation a lot of problems connected with it will inevitably appear. Many ofthem already exist. In this solution, a considered usage of foreign experiencecan help the Ukrainian community to optimize the processes essential for thetransitional period from one political system to another, and not to allow thesocial prevailing tensions to develop into a national civil crisis. And it willalso help to save time and resources.
The Main Part.
A system of power is a complex of organically connectedand bonded together governmental bodies, establishments and persons given thehighest authority, and also political parties and organizations, directlyhaving the power and putting it into life. The sources of power in ademocratically organized community are its people, and its system. First ofall, key figures within this structure should be under control of the people.This system is the core of legal functioning and serves as the foundation ofstate and public life. Its main parts are legislative and executive power.
If we want finally to live as normal people, we shouldseriously think which system of power we subject to and how is it possible toimprove it, how to make it suitable for the interests of our people and whatcan be taken from foreign, world experience. But one of the main problems isthat we are not the only ones, who don’t have a good system of modern power.Humanity hasn’t yet worked out a suitable and ideal system. That is why weshould build our own power by considering all positive and negative aspects ofthe world’s system and our one. But we should not forget that a power works wellonly when its authority is clearly and definitely determined.
Let’s compare our system of power withthe British one to see whether it is competent enough and how well organizedit is.
The Political System Of England
The organs of goverment in the United Kingdom of GreatBritian are:
1)
2)
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
The most interesting and important aspect of the Britishpolitical system, its pecularity, lies in its division of powers.
It is common knowledge that Great Britain, having theoldest Parliament in the world, has one of the most stable and effectivepolitical regimes of our time. Its stability is mostly the result of thedivision of powers, which, by the the way, is not the exeption from the generalrule.
The main idea of this variant lies in the following: theprinciple of the demarcation (division) is combined with a principle ofinteraction. And its principle is fixed in the British system of power not assomething abstract, but institutionally. I mean a special center, a linkingsection, which brings together the legislating and executing powers, and at thesame time is the center of making important political decisions. Surely, it isthe Cabinet and its leader which are at the head of the whole executive systemof the state.
The main 4 principles of division of powers are:
1)
2)
3)
4)
So, as we see, the legislators provide the execution ofthe laws and resolutions of the Parliament by controlling the State machinery,and in its turn, the state machinery participates in the legislative process,providing its preparatory stage (by doing a spade-work).
British Parliament.
The Comparison Of Two Political Systems:
Ukrainian And British Ones.
1. The firstdistinction may seem to be the form of rule:
Ukraine is a respublic. And Britain, as you probably know,is considered to be a parliamentary monarchy.
The Queen is the personification of the U.K. By law, sheis the head of the executive branch, an integral part of the legislature, thehead of the judiciary, thecommander-in-chief of all armed forces of the Crown and the temporal head ofthe established Church of England. But in practice, as a result of a longevolutionary process, these powers have changed. Today, the queen acts only on the advice of her Ministers whichshe cannot constitutionally ignore. In fact she reigns but she doesn’t rule.
However, the monarchy has a good deal more power than iscommonly supposed. There remain certaindiscretionary powers in the hands of the monarch, known as the RoyalPrerogative.
2. The Ukrainian and the British Parliaments have at least foursimilar functions:
a)
b)
c)
d)
The difference lies in the electoral systems and the rulesfor recalling the government.
But there is also one more remarkable peculiarity of theUkrainian Parliament: the political history of Ukraine does not know any potentlegislative bodies (we can hardly take into account the experience of theSoviet Congress ).
3. Both Ukraineand Britain are countries with the representative democracy (which means thatthe people delegate power to the bodies, which act on their behalf).
The difference is, thatBritain has a parliamentary form of government, and Ukraine, in its turn, has aso-called “semi-presidential” form. The main distinctions of this forms areshown in the table, given below.
The British parliamentary form
The Ukrainian “semi-pesidential” form
1. The election solves two questions:
On one hand, the forming of the Parliament. And on the other hand, the creation of the Government and different coalitions.
1. The election solves just one question:
Either the problem of forming the Parliament or the creation of the Government.
2. The Government is formed only by the Parliament.
2. The Government is formed by both the President and the Parliament.
3. The executive Power is separated.
3. The executive Power is not separated.
4. UnlikeBritain, Ukraine has different bodies of legislative and executive power, andone body doesn’t interfere with the activity of the other.
5. The negativefeatures of the British system may seem to be too much power in the hands ofPrime Minister and rather uncontrolled local government.
Summary
Having compared two political systems, I have come to theconclusion that the form and the level of development of the systems areinfluenced greatly by the history of the State. The second factor is that ofevaluationary progress, which usually improves the existing order and makes itmore democratic.
Having analysed two state systems, I have noticed thetendency towards the reinforcement ofthe executive power and a lessening of the legislative power. But still,parliament remains an integral institution in a democratic society.
I have studied the British political experience concerningthe division of powers and I can say that with all its originality, the BritishSystem is not something unique or exceptional. This system should be taken asthe foundation stone of the cooperation of two powers in countries with arepresentative democracy.
The reason for the lasting discussion of this problem inthe Ukrainian Parliament lies not only in involving the interests of powerfulpersons. Actually, it is the result of the “amateur” level to understand thisproblem.
A list of used literature:
1.
2. Comparative Legislatures, Durham, 1979
3.
4. Англійська мова, Либідь, 1992
5. Просвещение, 1977
6. // Правда, 1991
7. Anatomy of Britain, 1992
8.