WOULD CLINTON VS TRUMP EVER HAVE HAPPENED IN A PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT?

With the recent news that the British High Court has ruled Theresa May’s Conservative Government can’t begin the formal process of leaving the European Union without a vote from Parliament, the Prime minister was dealt a blow by the very issue that delivered her the job.

While the government said it would appeal the ruling (with the Supreme Court gearing up for a monumental decision), an upheld verdict would mean legislators of whom a large majority of voted to stay, could delay or even stop the entire process.

Brexit has ultimately brought into focus the dangers of leading in a parliamentary system of government and has already cost one Prime Minister — David Cameron — his job. But for a country heading to the polls next week to elect a new President, what is the parliamentary system?

The major difference between the systems employed by the U.S. and the UK/Australia is that in a Presidential system, the executive leader, the President, is directly voted upon by the people (or via a body elected specifically for the purpose of electing the president, and no other purpose), and the executive leader of the Parliamentary system, the Prime Minister, is elected from the legislative branch directly.

In the Presidential system, it is more difficult to enact legislation, especially in the event that the President has different beliefs than the legislative body. The President only responds to the people, the legislative branch can’t really do anything to threaten the President. As a result, we see constant gridlock in Congress.

So how would the current US election have played out under this style of Government?

Firstly there are no primary elections. To be in the running to become the Prime Minister the candidates would need to have already been an elected member of the House of Representatives. By convention, the Prime Minister is a member of the House of Representatives who leads the parliamentary party, or coalition of parties, with the support of the majority of members in the House. The leader is traditionally someone who has served a number of terms and overseen a number of portfolios either in government or in opposition. With that in mind, could either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump survive in this political climate?

It is feasible that Hillary Clinton through her roles as a New York Senator and Secretary of State that she would have been a natural leader for her party in a Parliamentary system. It is also unlikely that she would have been threatened by any challenge by Bernie Sanders given his career as an independent. Party defectors or ‘rats’ as they are commonly referred to in Australian politics have often seen little political success and high profile candidates that have taken this path have crashed and burned within one parliamentary term. Cheryl Kernot, an Australian Senator and Leader of the Australian Democrats who abruptly joined the Australian Labor Party who, changed parties because she believed that leading a minor party meant she had limited capacity to enact change. Elected to the House of Representatives in 1998 and serving as the Shadow Minister for Employment and Training, Kernot was dumped by voters in her electorate the following election.

Donald Trump on the other hand would in all likelihood never have been the leader of his party heading into an election. There is precedent however for an individual to lead a party to government from outside the halls of power unelected. In 2011 former Brisbane Lord Mayor Campbell Newman led the Liberal National Party (LNP) election team from outside the legislature, and formed government in 2012 in a historic landslide victory. One term later he was defeated in one of the biggest upsets in Australian politics.

A more likely scenario for Trump to become Prime Minister would be by forming his own political party, something billionaires have tried in Federal Australian politics with mixed results. Mining magnate, Clive Palmer in 2013 formed the Palmer United Party and himself won a lower house seat in the Queensland seat of Fairfax. The PUP also claimed three Senators, which afforded to him a shared balance of power. In parliamentary politics, the term balance of power refers to a small number of elected representatives not aligned to major parties who help pass legislation in return for legislation and policy commitments in return for their support. I know this sounds strange given the U.S. penchant for members to hold their own parties to ransom, but in Australia it is becoming a phenomenon of more regularity given the new volatility of its politics. Palmer, as is becoming a familiar outcome for all the aforementioned politicians in this article, decided not to contest the ensuing election, with 2 of his three elected senators also resigning and becoming independents.

Given these scenarios it is highly likely Hillary Clinton would have been the Democrats leader for this election and almost impossible to envisage Donald Trump leading the Republican party. So who would have been the candidate under a Parliamentary system to lead the Grand Old Party to electoral success in 2016?

The obvious candidate here is the Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. An 8-term congressman and Chair of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, Ryan may have ascended to the highest position in the House but in Australia, becoming the Speaker of the House is a fast track to retirement. You see, the Speaker is not an active political figure like the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. He or she does not take part in debates in the House, does not vote in the House except in the (rare) event of a tied vote, and does not speak in public on party-political issues (except at election time in his or her own constituency). He or she is expected to conduct the business of the House in an impartial manner, and generally does so.

So with Ryan out, who are we left with? Kevin McCarthy, the House Majority Leader, would be in this very, very hypothetical scenario, the Republicans nominee for President. Excuse me while I move swiftly along and back to the candidates at hand.

So how would Hillary or ‘The Donald’ fare if elected in this system of Government? Well this is where it gets fun. Again, by convention, the Prime Minister leads the parliamentary party, which has the majority of members in the House (whether a single party or coalition of parties). If they no longer have the support of their party they can be replaced with a new leader and Prime Minister appointed without having to face the voting public. Since 2007 the ruling party has replaced their leader 5 times with no leader lasting a full-term.

Given the lack of depth in the recent Democratic primaries and that it is largely a united party heading into next weeks election it is a safe bet to presume that Hillary would see an extended period as leader. Donald Trump on the other hand leads a deeply divided party with a number of ambitious alternatives waiting in the wings who would no doubt be ‘counting the numbers’ in the hope of toppling the leader. And that’s just his own party. In the Parliamentary system, if the Parliament as a whole doesn’t like the Prime Minister, they can also cast a vote of no confidence and replace him or her.

One of the commonly attributed advantages to parliamentary systems is that it is faster and easier to pass legislation, an option that would be appealing to large numbers of U.S. voters given the 76% disapproval rating of congress in the latest Gallup poll. Australia also has compulsory voting, no primaries elections, no gerrymandered districts, and this is the real kicker, 6-week election campaigns.

Australia also has no maximum period of service for a Prime Minister, unlike the United States, where the President can only serve for two four-year terms. So yes, given the current underwhelming enthusiasm for the two candidates before us, President Obama can stay on as long as those approval ratings remain at historically high levels, because as soon as the drop it will only be a matter of time before he’s replaced. The parliamentary system can be very brutal and unforgiving like that.