It’s obvious from this excerpt that Adams was mostly talking about British Prime Ministers, who are elected by the government and do not wield much (if any) power beyond that of being a figurehead. Of perhaps the Royalty, who aren’t elected but hold even less power and are even more of a distraction.
The US president, by contrast, is not elected by the government and has a shit-ton of power, and increasingly so as the US congress is less and less able to govern due to Republican infighting. The US president can start and win a foreign war in less time than it takes congress to even form an opinion on the matter.
Zaphod spent two years in prison for fraud, meanwhile the US president is protected by more military firepower than literal nukes and has a chain of succession longer than most Kings because the US government literally cannot function without a President.
Adams was mostly talking about British Prime Ministers, who are elected by the government and do not wield much (if any) power beyond that of being a figurehead
I’m not British so I might be off-base, but my understanding is that like other European parliamentary monarchies, the PM is the effective head-of-state but their title rests entirely on the good graces of the MPs who can (and often do) replace the PM.
Furthermore the Executive branch of government isn’t particularly powerful, unlike the US. Maybe I’m fundamentally misunderstanding things but I don’t often hear about a British PM spending billions or starting wars without parliamentary involvement, which US presidents regularly do even if they don’t enjoy a majority in Congress (which is not a situation that British PMs can find themselves in by definition).
Of course the UK has the problem of FPTP voting which leads to (quasi) bipartism which means the PM has a rather symbiotic relationship with over half of parliament, but it’s still a very different dynamic.
The King would be the figurehead you’re thinking of. The PM may seem at the behest of his MPs (or the MPs of parliament in general), but, as we saw with Boris (fucking) Johnson and David (oink) Cameron, they can whip MPs, expel them if they defy the whip, prorogue parliament, call referenda, and many other acts which allow them to do as they wish if they wield their power in the ‘right’ way. There are things which the PM can do outside of parliament, as with any leader of a country; this includes starting wars, appointing members of the cabinet (and other branches).
No, that’s the monarch (where it still exists) or the president in parliamentary democracies (not presidential democracies).
The PM is in fact the leader of government and relies on the good graces of the governing party or parties, not unlike the US president candidate effectively needs to unite his party behind him.
The difference is mostly the ability to get removed/replaced hy his party but usually no term limits, where presidents are term-limited and there are explicit regulations how the parliament can remove them (something that is already inhently given in parliamental systems where the government leader is selected via parliamental majority in the first place).
I think you brush over a detail too fast. The US president needs to unite his party… until the last ballot is cast. That very instant, this stops being true for four years. Combined with a powerful executive that keeps the president very powerful even without legislative support.
Of course by definition any democratic system has checks and balances and ultimately ends up being representative of the will people in some way, but my point is that British PMs are a lot closer to being “harmless distractions” such as Zaphod than US presidents (also Douglas Adams was English).
It’s obvious from this excerpt that Adams was mostly talking about British Prime Ministers, who are elected by the government and do not wield much (if any) power beyond that of being a figurehead. Of perhaps the Royalty, who aren’t elected but hold even less power and are even more of a distraction.
The US president, by contrast, is not elected by the government and has a shit-ton of power, and increasingly so as the US congress is less and less able to govern due to Republican infighting. The US president can start and win a foreign war in less time than it takes congress to even form an opinion on the matter.
Zaphod spent two years in prison for fraud, meanwhile the US president is protected by more military firepower than literal nukes and has a chain of succession longer than most Kings because the US government literally cannot function without a President.
That’s not true though.
I’m not British so I might be off-base, but my understanding is that like other European parliamentary monarchies, the PM is the effective head-of-state but their title rests entirely on the good graces of the MPs who can (and often do) replace the PM.
Furthermore the Executive branch of government isn’t particularly powerful, unlike the US. Maybe I’m fundamentally misunderstanding things but I don’t often hear about a British PM spending billions or starting wars without parliamentary involvement, which US presidents regularly do even if they don’t enjoy a majority in Congress (which is not a situation that British PMs can find themselves in by definition).
Of course the UK has the problem of FPTP voting which leads to (quasi) bipartism which means the PM has a rather symbiotic relationship with over half of parliament, but it’s still a very different dynamic.
The King would be the figurehead you’re thinking of. The PM may seem at the behest of his MPs (or the MPs of parliament in general), but, as we saw with Boris (fucking) Johnson and David (oink) Cameron, they can whip MPs, expel them if they defy the whip, prorogue parliament, call referenda, and many other acts which allow them to do as they wish if they wield their power in the ‘right’ way. There are things which the PM can do outside of parliament, as with any leader of a country; this includes starting wars, appointing members of the cabinet (and other branches).
This does a decent job of explaining it:
https://theweek.com/100451/is-the-british-prime-minister-too-powerful
No, that’s the monarch (where it still exists) or the president in parliamentary democracies (not presidential democracies).
The PM is in fact the leader of government and relies on the good graces of the governing party or parties, not unlike the US president candidate effectively needs to unite his party behind him.
The difference is mostly the ability to get removed/replaced hy his party but usually no term limits, where presidents are term-limited and there are explicit regulations how the parliament can remove them (something that is already inhently given in parliamental systems where the government leader is selected via parliamental majority in the first place).
I think you brush over a detail too fast. The US president needs to unite his party… until the last ballot is cast. That very instant, this stops being true for four years. Combined with a powerful executive that keeps the president very powerful even without legislative support.
Of course by definition any democratic system has checks and balances and ultimately ends up being representative of the will people in some way, but my point is that British PMs are a lot closer to being “harmless distractions” such as Zaphod than US presidents (also Douglas Adams was English).