Comparing Constitutional Arrangements (AQA A-Level Politics): Revision Notes

Theoretical Approaches to Comparing Constitutional Arrangements

When comparing the constitutional arrangements of the UK and USA, political scientists use three main theoretical frameworks: structural theory, rational theory, and cultural theory. Each approach offers distinct insights into how these two democracies are organized and function.

Comparing the constitutions

Structural theory

Structural theory examines the formal institutional arrangements and frameworks that shape how government operates. This approach reveals fundamental differences in how the UK and US constitutions are organized.

The most obvious structural difference is that the US has a codified constitution - a single, written document that sets out the rules of government. In contrast, the UK has an uncodified constitution, meaning constitutional rules are spread across various sources including statute law, common law, and conventions. This makes the US Constitution more accessible and widely known among citizens, whilst the UK's constitutional arrangements can be harder to identify and understand.

Another key structural difference concerns the distribution of power. The UK operates with fusion of powers, where the executive (the Prime Minister and Cabinet) sits within the legislature (Parliament). The USA, by contrast, has separation of powers, keeping the executive branch distinct from Congress. However, both terms require qualification - neither system perfectly embodies these principles in practice.

The territorial structure also differs significantly. The USA has a federal system, with power divided between the national government and 50 state governments. The UK traditionally operated as a unitary state, though the growing role of devolved assemblies in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland has introduced federal-like elements to the system.

Rational theory

Rational theory focuses on how political actors behave strategically within institutional structures, examining the incentives and constraints they face.

In the USA, the Supreme Court plays a pivotal role in constitutional interpretation, making it a primary target for pressure groups and lobbyists seeking to influence policy. UK pressure groups have traditionally focused their efforts on Parliament, though this is gradually changing with devolution and the diminished role of the EU post-Brexit.

Both political leaders must invest considerable time persuading members of their own party to support legislation and policies, though this is notably more common in the USA. American presidents cannot rely on automatic party loyalty and must build coalitions for each major initiative.

The federal structure in America means state governments attract significant lobbying attention, as they hold substantial policy-making powers. In the UK, devolved assemblies are increasingly becoming targets for pressure group activity, though Westminster remains the dominant focus. Following Brexit, the EU has become a far less significant target for UK lobbying efforts.

Cultural theory

Cultural theory examines the historical traditions, values, and beliefs that shape constitutional development and public attitudes towards government institutions.

There exists a deep-rooted attachment to states' rights in American political culture, contrasting sharply with the traditional British emphasis on parliamentary sovereignty. This reflects fundamentally different constitutional philosophies about where ultimate authority should rest.

Historical traditions remain embedded in both systems. The British Constitution retains aristocratic and ecclesiastical elements, particularly in the House of Lords which includes appointed and hereditary peers as well as Church of England bishops. The US Constitution draws terminology from classical republican ideals, such as the term "Senate" which echoes the Roman Republic.

Comparing devolution and federalism

Structural theory

Structural differences between American federalism and UK devolution are substantial and constitutionally significant.

The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution establishes federalism as a fundamental, entrenched principle. It reserves to states all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government, giving every state considerable law-making authority. By contrast, UK devolution exists only through parliamentary statute and is not entrenched in constitutional law. This means Parliament could theoretically revoke devolved powers, whereas US states' constitutional status cannot be removed by federal legislation.

Furthermore, federalism operates uniformly across all 50 American states, each possessing the same constitutional relationship with the federal government. UK devolution, however, applies inconsistently - only Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have devolved assemblies, and each possesses different powers. England has no devolved institutions at the national level. Even where devolution exists, powers remain relatively limited compared to US states.

Rational theory

The rational behaviour of political actors differs significantly under federalism versus devolution.

In the USA, state elections constitute major political events, often fiercely contested both between and within the two main parties. Governorships and state legislatures are seen as valuable prizes in themselves, not merely stepping stones to national office.

American pressure groups direct substantial resources towards state legislatures and state supreme courts, recognizing these as important policy-making venues. In the UK, Westminster and Whitehall remain the primary lobbying targets, though devolved assemblies are gaining attention.

In contrast, secession has been completely off the table for US states since the Civil War ended in 1865. No mainstream political movement advocates state independence from the union.

Cultural theory

Cultural attitudes towards regional governance differ markedly between the two countries.

States' rights represent a deeply embedded concept in American political culture, reflected in strong public attachment to state-based institutions. State governors frequently enjoy higher approval ratings than presidents or Congress, indicating public trust in state-level government.

The leaders of UK devolved assemblies are far more recent additions to the political landscape, having emerged only since the late 1990s. However, figures like Scotland's First Minister have arguably gained considerable profile and political significance in recent years, suggesting evolving public attitudes towards devolved institutions.

Comparing the legislatures

Structural theory

Structural differences between Congress and Parliament fundamentally shape how each legislature functions.

Both chambers of Congress - the House of Representatives and the Senate - enjoy significant concurrent powers, meaning legislation must pass through both chambers. Both also have powerful committee systems. House committees can initiate impeachment proceedings against federal officials, while the Senate Judiciary Committee plays a crucial preliminary role in confirming judicial nominations.

The relationship between executive and legislature differs fundamentally. In the UK, the executive is located within the legislature through fusion of powers - every member of the Prime Minister's Cabinet must hold a seat in Parliament and answer directly to it. In the USA, the separation of powers means no member of the president's cabinet can simultaneously serve in Congress.

Power distribution also differs territorially. In the USA, substantial authority resides with the 50 states, meaning Congress is not the sole important political arena. While devolution has changed the situation somewhat in the UK, Westminster still dominates most areas of political life, particularly regarding major issues like Brexit and the national budget.

Rational theory

Political behaviour and strategy differ between the two legislatures, though some similarities exist.

Two major political parties have dominated in both nations. However, third parties play a more significant role at Westminster - the Liberal Democrats held the balance of power from 2010 to 2015, and the Democratic Unionist Party did likewise from 2017 to 2019. Third parties rarely achieve such influence in Congress.

Cultural theory

The traditions and theatrical nature of each legislature reflect their distinct cultural inheritances.

Parliament retains many anachronistic traditions, including the Queen's Speech (now King's Speech), the division system of voting where MPs physically walk through lobbies, and antiquated terminology like "Black Rod". Congress also has longstanding traditions and constitutional requirements such as the State of the Union Address, but it is generally less dominated by ancient ritual. However, Congress has developed its own traditions over time, notably the Senate filibuster - a procedural tactic allowing senators to block legislation through extended debate.

In the UK, the debating floor of the Commons, particularly during Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs), provides political theatre and drama. Ministers face direct, often hostile questioning in an overtly adversarial atmosphere. Such direct questioning of the president is impossible in Congress due to the separation of personnel between executive and legislative branches. Congressional floor debates generally lack the drama and confrontational nature characteristic of the Commons, reflecting a different political culture.