On Tuesday, Americans will go to the polls. They will choose between two principal candidates. The focus on their relative merits has rather obscured discussion of the process by which they became candidates. Both have risen to the top despite not having any executive experience. The last Senator to be elected President was John Kennedy (and he was not a particularly good President). The tendency since has been to elect candidates who have held office as Vice-President (Johnson, Nixon, though both former Senators, and Bush Snr) or Governor (Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush Jr). Only Gerald Ford was neither. Performance in office suggests that prior executive experience is not necessarily a good guide to how one will perform in office.
There are three major drawbacks to the process of selecting presidential candidates. First, one has to engage in a massive fundraising campaign and/or be independently wealthy. Second, one has to engage in a gruelling campaign and submit oneself to extensive and often invasive media scrutiny. Not surprisingly, some exceedingly able people do not put their names forward. Thirdly, the process enables virtual unknowns to gain the candidacy: this category would include George McGovern, Jimmy Carter and the present two candidates. One could argue that this can also be advantageous, ensuring that the candidacy does not necessarily go to the establishment candidate, but it may result in electors knowing little about who they are voting for, despite the extensive media coverage. One tends to know their personal failings but not necessarily their capacity for decision making and sound judgement.
In the UK, a candidate for the premiership has to pursue a very different route. Whereas in the USA there are multiple routes to the top, in the UK there is really only one – through the House of Commons. Aspirants for the premiership normally go through an apprenticeship – some time on the back benches, then junior ministerial office, Cabinet office and the premiership. By the time one enters No. 10, one is a known quantity. Not all premiers, though, have had ministerial office (Tony Blair, for example) but at least have some parliamentary and front bench experience. Some have been relative unknowns (such as John Major) but nonetheless have had some ministerial experience.
Is our system preferable in requiring candidates to go through a more structured career route? Does it produce premiers with the requisite skills, not least of taking decisions – and appropriate ones? Or is the American system better because it is more open to the unconventional candidate and enables Americans to make a direct choice?
One conclusion one can draw, though, is that processes matter. Had there been a different system in the USA then the names on the ballot on Tuesday may have been very different.
Dear Lord Norton,
When reading this I was reminded of Sir John Stokes and that wonderful line of his which went something like ‘I would not wish to compare us with other less fortunate parts of the world’!
Howridiculous.
“Thirdly, the process enables virtual unknowns to gain the candidacy: this category would include George McGovern, Jimmy Carter and the present two candidates.”
How are the present two candidates ‘virtual unknowns’? John McCain is a war hero who was tortured in Vietnam and has spent many years in the Senate campaigning for issues that sometimes the Republican party chose to ignore. I’m sure most Americans are very familiar with his story.
Obama, albeit only recently, came to prominence in 2004 with his speech at the Democratic convention and is famous for his opposition to the Iraq War. I don’t really see how he qualifies as an ‘unknown’.
Anyway in regards to the question that you posed in this blog I think there are merits to both systems. Parliamentary and Presidential elections both produce equal numbers of good and bad PMs and Presidents. I don’t think you can ever objectively say that one is better than the other.
The comparison is a tremendously useful one:
Just comparing the disadvantages:
The parliamentary system has produced voting blocks/coalitions and compromises in leaders (e.g. Japan). It has produced dynastic democracies (India) [where the family holds the name recognition/party purse]. Very often the system transfers to splintered coalitions and gridlock
The presidential system, OTOH, has produced seamless transitions to dictatorship (too numerous to mention)
I’m sure there are plenty of posters who will point out the positives of each system 🙂
Bromeli: They are ‘unknowns’ in terms of their capacity for executive office.
Respectfully, Your Lordship, if Gerald Ford held neither the Vice Presidency nor a Governorship, who was the 40th Vice President of the United States, who was the first Vice President to be nominated under the provisions of the 25th Amendment, and who assumed the Presidency when Richard Nixon became the first and only President of the United States to resign from office?
Having said that one could argue the gruelling process in the states
is more about gaining a view to the character of the hopefuls. It’s
hard to imagine of any job that can prepare you for the highest office
in the land (possibly the world). The best you can probably achieve is
get an idea for how the candidates takes advice and approaches
problems and hope that translates well when they have their hands on
the levers of power.
I don’t know how much role civil servants have in US politics but my
passing knowledge of the system gleaned from “The West Wing” seems to
indicate the President of the USA has a fairly big team of advisers to
inform them of their options.
Of course we don’t have any direct control over who our Prime
Minister is so there is always the possibility the controlling party
screw up in their choice of leader. I’m not sure direct election of
the PM would be desirable for our politics but it seems to work for
the US and their system of government.
JR: My point was that Gerald Ford was never on an election ticket other than as a member of the House of Representatives. The only elected office he held was as a member of the House for Grand Rapids in Michigan. All the others were VP candidates in a presidential election.