4 ms·
Sounds like South Carolina follows a Westminster style government. Look at the UK, NZ, AU governments (and I assume Canada, don't know for sure): A King, or Gov
by verve_rat 3y ago
Sounds like South Carolina follows a Westminster style government. Look at the UK, NZ, AU governments (and I assume Canada, don't know for sure): A King, or Governor-General, with the theoretical power to override parliament. A Head of State which can issue decrees and makes important decisions "on the advice of the Prime Minster".
Basically a figure head and a bunch of legal fictions wrapped up in the concept of "The Crown". But the real power lies with the PM and their Cabinet. But the party in charge can change the PM whenever they want, and if it ever got bad enough Parliament can change the party in charge without waiting for an election.
The PM is responsible to the Cabinet and to their party and to the rest of Parliament. It is all one big mess of ambitious people pointing guns at each other, constantly evaluating their position ahead of the next election.
- int_19h 3y agoWestminster system is not a particularly good example of checks and balances, though, given that whole parliamentary supremacy thing. A Westminster-style Parliament is essentially unanswerable to anyone but the voters; and even then it can unilaterally change election laws, so it can circumvent the voters as well. If the courts deem some act of Parliament unlawful, the latter can just pass another act explicitly declaring it lawful (the recent Safety of Rwanda Bill was a good example of just such an attempt).
- verve_rat 3y agoYeah, parliament is sovereign, the checks and balances are (meant to be) internal to parliament. That may break down a bit with modern parties and modern elections, I guess we will see if these systems still work in another couple of hundred years.