2-Examine the power of the President and Prime Minister

Paragraph 1: Head of State and Symbolic Power
Overall Point:
The President has greater symbolic authority than the Prime Minister due to their dual role as head of state and head of government.

Explanation:
In the UK, the monarch is the ceremonial head of state, while the Prime Minister focuses on government. In contrast, the US President is both, giving them a personal, national mandate to lead, represent, and unify the country.

UK Evidence:
The Prime Minister is not directly elected by the public but rather chosen by MPs as party leader. Although figures like Boris Johnson gained personal recognition (especially during Brexit), they lack a direct national mandate and are symbolically overshadowed by the monarchy. National unity speeches are rare and less potent. Even major national crises like COVID-19 or ‘partygate’ scandals eroded the PM's symbolic authority rather than enhancing it.

US Evidence:
The President is directly elected and symbolises national unity. For example, George W. Bush addressed the nation after 9/11, significantly boosting his approval ratings. Biden similarly played a unifying role after the Capitol riots in 2021 and in his 2024 State of the Union speech, where he called for bipartisanship and legislative cooperation. Presidential visibility also extends to crisis leadership — e.g. Obama addressing the nation post–Osama bin Laden’s death, or Biden pardoning 6,500 people for marijuana possession, showcasing symbolic as well as executive leadership.

Comparative Theory:
Structural – The US Constitution merges symbolic and executive power in one figure, while the UK separates these functions. This makes the President more powerful as a symbolic national leader.

Paragraph 2: Foreign Affairs and War Powers
Overall Point:
Formally, both leaders have significant roles in foreign policy, but the Prime Minister may have more unilateral power in practice due to the royal prerogative.

Explanation:
The US President is commander-in-chief and negotiates treaties but must often work through Congress, which declares war and ratifies treaties. The UK PM exercises royal prerogative powers on foreign affairs and military deployment, although Parliament is increasingly involved by convention.

UK Evidence:
Tony Blair’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003 bypassed legal requirement for parliamentary approval. However, in 2013, David Cameron’s proposed military action in Syria was voted down in Parliament, limiting executive action despite the prerogative. More recently, the May 2024 case of cabinet rebellion over UK universities and Rwanda policy shows that prime ministers still hold significant agenda-setting power in foreign affairs.

US Evidence:
Obama’s 2010 New START treaty with Russia required Senate ratification, showing formal congressional restraint. Trump’s 2020 airstrike killing General Soleimani in Iran was highly controversial and bypassed Congress, but he later vetoed a bipartisan Iran War Powers resolution aiming to limit his authority — a veto Congress failed to override. Biden’s 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan proceeded without formal approval, showing Presidents can still act decisively under their commander-in-chief role.

Comparative Theory:
Rational – The President may face greater institutional checks, while the UK PM can act more decisively using prerogative powers. However, both respond to political pressures and seek pragmatic gains, like Sunak’s Rwanda recalibrations or Biden’s Gaza ceasefire push (2024).

Paragraph 3: Legislative Power and Party Control
Overall Point:
The Prime Minister tends to have more consistent control over legislation than the President due to parliamentary fusion of powers and party loyalty.

Explanation:
In the UK, the PM dominates Parliament through the party majority and whipping system. In the US, Presidents face an independently elected Congress, even when their party holds both chambers — making gridlock common.

UK Evidence:
Boris Johnson passed his Brexit deal in 2020 thanks to a large Commons majority and strict party discipline. Even contentious proposals like the Rwanda deportation scheme passed the Commons, despite internal criticism. Cabinet reshuffles, like Suella Braverman’s sacking in November 2023 by Rishi Sunak, also reflect how PMs can exert control over dissenters to maintain legislative unity.

US Evidence:
Biden struggled to pass key elements of his Build Back Better plan due to internal Democratic opposition, notably from Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. Even with a trifecta in 2021–2022, divisions within the Democratic party reduced his ability to enact sweeping legislation. Trump, despite holding both chambers early in his term, failed to repeal Obamacare and faced major opposition to his infrastructure plans.

Comparative Theory:
Structural – The UK’s fusion of executive and legislative branches gives the PM inherent legislative dominance, while the US system of separation of powers often weakens a President’s ability to push through their agenda, even with a partisan majority.