Britain's Balance of Power

Observers of British politics have often noted an apparent lack of balance of power in the British government, particularly when compared to the United States government’s independent judicial, executive, and legislative branches. Traditionally, however, Britain has had a balance of power, just a different one. It was a balance of Aristotle’s three benevolent forms of government: monarchy, aristocracy (House of Lords), and polity (House of Commons). More recently, however, some important balances exist below the superficial level of Members of Parliament and Ministers. The civil service is constant, persisting through various governments. The civil servants are the experts in their respective fields, be it agriculture, transportation, or foreign affairs. As a result, regardless of who is in power, the civil service acts as a common source of information to any government, checking the tendency of strong governments to make radical, polar policies when different governments are in power.

An important question arises from the contrast between Americans’ and Britons' approach to balance of power. America values limiting the federal governments’ ability to enact policies that are too extreme, whereas Britain values consistency in the people who inform policy makers. Which is better? I argue that it is better to have a government that a populace elects enact policies based on accurate information and well-thought out analysis of that information, because that would allow the government to be more representative of what the people want. On the other hand, the American system could encourage policies which are based on different information, depending on who is in power, because the people advising the president are his personal picks. These policies may be checked by legislative powers, but that is not the important matter. Would you rather have a balance of information or a balance of the ability to act on changing information?