Why the Prime Minister cannot be a President: Comparing Institutional Imperatives in Britain and America
Why the Prime Minister cannot be a President: Comparing Institutional Imperatives in Britain and America
复制标题
为什么首相不能当总统：比较英国和美国的制度要求
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2005
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
R. Heffernan
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. Heffernan
在英国首相身上，“总统化”的概念通常更多地关注公职人员的个人风格，而不是职位本身的制度实质。首相是英国议会制度的产物，而这一制度及其所施加的制度结构规定并限制了首相的权力。将英国与美国进行比较可以发现，在行政立法方面，英国首相比任何一位美国总统都更有命令力，而在行政内部方面，总统更有权力。总统制概念没有承认，购买立法权使英国议会行政部门比美国总统行政部门更具权威。如果总理能够领导他或她的行政部门，确定其关键决策，制定其议程并指导其部长的工作，那么他或她将是比总统更有影响力的行动者，这是经常但并非总是如此。体制上的差异使总理和总统区别开来。英国没有总统制，所以不能有总统行政长官。
The notion of presidentialisation, applied to the British Prime Minister, usually focuses more on the personal style of the of the officeholder, less on the institutional substance of the office itself. The Prime Minister is the product of the British parliamentary system, and this system—and the institutional structures it imposes—provides for and circumscribes his or her powers. Comparing Britain with the US demonstrates that in executive-legislative terms a British Prime Minister is more commanding than any US President, while in intra-executive terms the President is more powerful. The presidentialisation notion fails to acknowledge that its legislative purchase makes the British parliamentary executive more authoritative than its US presidential counterpart. Should, as is often but not always the case, a Prime Minister be able to lead his or her executive, determine its key decisions, shape its agenda and guide the work of its ministers, he or she will be a more influential actor than the President. Systemic differences distinguish Prime Ministers from Presidents. Britain does not have a presidential system, so it cannot have a presidential chief executive.