2006-07-10 02:42:40 · 10 answers · asked by elya 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Embassies & Consulates
The prime minister with a parliamentary majority is more powerful considering that he can dictate what he wants and it is immediately approved by his supporters.
2006-07-11 23:09:42 · answer #1 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The first, because a President opposed by both the House and Senate can actually happen, but a Prime Minister with a majority in Parliament is a fantasy, because it is impossible to get anything better than a shaky coalition in a multiparty parliamentary democracy. Unless you're in the UK, that is. In which case, the President still has more power for the reasons listed above by BoredLawyer.
2006-07-11 17:34:01 · answer #2 · answered by libertyu9 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The President does. A President retains the full scope of Presidential power with or without support in the legislature, whereas a Prime Minister's support is always completely dependent on legislative support that can evaporate very quickly and at inopportune times. A President by definition always has the full power of a coordinate branch of government, while a Prime Minister is very much a "first among equals".
2006-07-10 03:27:36 · answer #3 · answered by BoredBookworm 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The prime minister because he has the majority to back him up.
2006-07-10 02:50:13 · answer #4 · answered by Utah Gidget 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A president can hold a police action for several months without even consulting the senate.
2006-07-10 12:56:15 · answer #5 · answered by Black Sabbath 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
LIke maximum individuals, you're making 2 blunders: a million. you're assuming that spending distinctive money = socialism. it truly isn't any longer what socialism is. If it were, Bush can be a socialist, because he doubled the nationwide debt in the time of his time in workplace -- the biggest improve lower than one president in American historic previous. And no, Obama has no longer outspent Bush in only 2 months -- it truly is an entire lie that only someone who pays no interest to monetary coverage ought to believe. Bush's accrued debt on my own, no longer even his finished spending, became virtually $5 trillion. 2. Obama's "huge spending" isn't that much better than Bush's. Obama's modern funds asks for $3.5 trillion. Bush's very last funds called for $3.a million trillion. it truly is purely the GOP propaganda gadget in finished swing, making human beings imagine Bush became a monetary conservative even as Obama is ona reckless spending spree. do not ignore -- this modern round of handouts all started lower than Bush, including his $seven hundred billion Wall street bailout. And in case you pick to discuss socialism, it became Bush's administration that began the federal takeover of banks and lenders -- and that is the textbook definition of socialism. I wasn't prepared on any of this lower than Bush, and that i'm no longer prepared on it now. yet to pretend Obama all started this is a delusion -- there is no incorrect thanks to placed it. it may purely be astounding if Republicans may drop the posturing and pretend like they did not make contributions to this problem by technique of performing the very similar way in words of spending and socializing.
2016-11-30 23:55:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depend on the kind of "power" yield and type of influence one can make, either 1 will be powerful.
2006-07-10 02:49:48 · answer #7 · answered by Keung W 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yo yo funk wizard has da most power!
2006-07-10 02:45:54 · answer #8 · answered by Snow 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
PM w/ the majority, obviously..
2006-07-10 02:45:42 · answer #9 · answered by eatmorec11h17no3 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's simple. the PM of course.
2006-07-11 08:46:14 · answer #10 · answered by jkjjkhj 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋