22.4.2 The extent of accountability to the US and UK legislature.

The Extent of Accountability to the US and UK Legislature

Aspect	UK: Parliament (House of Commons & House of Lords)	US: Congress (House of Representatives & Senate)
Executive Accountability	• The Prime Minister and Cabinet are directly accountable to Parliament, particularly the House of Commons • The government can be removed through a vote of no confidence in the House of Commons. • Ministers are regularly questioned during Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) and other parliamentary sessions. • Select Committees scrutinize the work of government departments and hold ministers accountable. • The fusion of powers means that the executive (Prime Minister and ministers) are also members of the legislature, enhancing direct accountability.	• The President and executive branch are separate from Congress, creating a system of checks and balances. • The President is not directly accountable to Congress in the same way as the UK Prime Minister is to Parliament. • Congress holds the power to impeach the President, as well as other federal officials, for "high crimes and misdemeanors." This is a significant but rarely used form of accountability. • Congressional committees conduct oversight of the executive branch, holding hearings and investigations to scrutinize executive actions. • The President's appointments (e.g., judges, cabinet members) require Senate confirmation, providing a key check on executive power.
Legislative Oversight	• Parliamentary Select Committees play a key role in overseeing government departments and holding ministers accountable. • The House of Lords, although not elected, can scrutinize legislation and suggest amendments, providing additional oversight. • The opposition plays a formal role in holding the government to account, with mechanisms like the Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Cabinet. • The UK Parliament can question and debate government policies and decisions, although the majority party often controls the legislative agenda.	• Congressional committees are powerful tools for oversight, with the authority to subpoena witnesses, conduct investigations, and hold hearings. • Congress has the "power of the purse," controlling government funding, which can be used as leverage to hold the executive accountable. • Bicameral structure allows for checks within the legislature itself, with the House and Senate often serving as a check on each other. • The minority party in Congress can use filibusters (in the Senate), hold hearings, and leverage media to hold the majority party and the executive accountable. • Oversight is often more adversarial, especially when different parties control the executive and legislative branches.
Judicial Accountability	• UK judiciary is independent, but Parliament has the ultimate authority to change laws (Parliamentary Sovereignty). • The UK Supreme Court can rule on the legality of executive actions, but its decisions can be overturned by new legislation from Parliament. • The 2019 prorogation case highlighted the judiciary's role in checking executive power, but it remains under the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.	• The US judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, is an independent branch with the power of judicial review, allowing it to strike down laws or executive actions that are unconstitutional. • Congress can influence the judiciary through the confirmation process for federal judges (Senate confirms presidential appointments). • Judicial decisions can only be overturned by constitutional amendments or new Supreme Court rulings, making the judiciary a powerful check on both the executive and legislative branches • The impeachment process also extends to federal judges, providing another layer of accountability.
Public and Media Accountability	• The UK media plays a significant role in holding the government accountable, with robust coverage of parliamentary proceedings, scandals, and PMQs. • Public opinion can influence parliamentary actions, especially in marginal seats. • MPs are accountable to their constituents through elections every five years (or sooner if a snap election is called). • Public inquiries and commissions are sometimes established to investigate government actions.	• The US media serves as a critical check on the government, with extensive coverage of Congressional hearings, presidential actions, and political scandals. • Public opinion can heavily influence Congressional actions, particularly during election years. • Members of Congress are directly accountable to their constituents, with House members facing re-election every two years and Senators every six years. • Congressional investigations and independent commissions (e.g., the 9/11 Commission) play a key role in public accountability.

Key Differences in Accountability:

1. Separation of Powers vs. Fusion of Powers:

• US: The separation of powers creates distinct branches of government. The President is not a member of Congress and is not directly accountable to it in the same way. However, checks and balances, such as impeachment and Congressional oversight, ensure accountability.

2. Legislative Oversight Mechanisms:

• UK: Parliamentary Select Committees provide oversight, and the House of Lords can delay legislation and suggest amendments. However, the majority party often controls the legislative agenda, which can limit the effectiveness of oversight.
• US: Congressional committees are powerful oversight bodies, with the ability to conduct investigations, subpoena witnesses, and control government funding. The bicameral structure also allows for internal checks within Congress.

3. Judicial Role:

• UK: While the judiciary can rule on the legality of government actions, Parliament remains sovereign and can ultimately change laws. Judicial rulings can be overridden by new legislation.
• US: The judiciary has significant power through judicial review, with the ability to strike down laws and executive actions as unconstitutional. Congress can only override these decisions through constitutional amendments or new Supreme Court rulings.

4. Public and Media Accountability:

• UK: The media plays a significant role in holding the government accountable, and MPs face direct accountability to their constituents through elections. Public inquiries also serve as a tool for accountability.
• US: The media is a critical check on the government, with extensive coverage of Congressional hearings and presidential actions. Members of Congress are regularly held accountable through elections and public opinion, with investigations and commissions playing a key role in transparency.

Conclusion:

Analyse the differences in how the US and UK executive can be held to account by their legislatures

Paragraph 1:

• Parliament can pressurise a minister to resign who has broken the ministerial code or misled Parliament, eg Amber Rudd due to the windrush scandal and Matt Hancock, breaching lockdown rules

• No equivalent exists in the US

• US Executive and US Cabinet is separate from Congress and therefore not subject to it Paragraph 2:

• Easy in the US, especially when there is a divided government

• Eg reject legislation as a form of scrutiny

• For example, Obama the Democrat President had a bill vetoed by Congress

• Republican Congress in 2016 overrode his Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act

• However, it is difficult in the UK as the executive tends to dominate Parliament

• Collective ministerial responsibility means cabinet ministers have to agree with the PM's decision

Paragraph 3:

• Impeachment in the USA and vote of no confidence in the UK
• Impeachment where the President is removed from office. For example, Trump in 2019 for coercing the Ukraine Govt for intel on his opponent Joe Biden. However, not successful
• A vote of no confidence simply based on the popularity of the executive
• In the UK 1979 General Election Jim Callaghan Labour PM called for a 'vote of no confidence' and Conservative PM Margaret Thatcher won