The US Congress has a more difficult job in trying to call the executive branch to account than Parliament has in the UK, simply because executive branch members are not members of the legislature as they are in the UK. So, for example, there is no Question Time in Congress: there’s no one to question, at least not on the floor of the House or the Senate. Only in the committee rooms of Congress can members of the executive branch be questioned by members of Congress. Whereas in the UK the executive branch too often controls Parliament, through having a guaranteed majority in the House of Commons, through patronage and through party discipline, in the USA, Congress is more independent of the executive: the members are separately elected; different parties may control Congress and the presidency; party discipline is said to be much weaker; and the president has little patronage to offer to members of Congress. Indeed, critics of the British system often speak admiringly of the US system. Congress is thought to have real teeth when it comes to oversight of the executive, but is this really the case? Or is Congress more lapdog than watchdog?
In the UK parliament, the focus of oversight of the executive branch is on the floor of the House of Commons — in the chamber itself. The parliamentary select committees are seen as the poor relation, lacking expertise, funding, administrative back-up and clout. It’s all quite different in Congress, where the congressional committees, particularly the standing committees in both houses, are the focus of Congress’s oversight function. Congressional standing committees are noted for their expertise. Members of Congress stay on the same committee for years and in so doing gain considerable expertise in that particular policy area.
Your organisation does not have access to this article.
Sign up today to give your students the edge they need to achieve their best grades with subject expertise
Subscribe
