Efficiency is the ratio of output to input. Efficiency of law-making is the ratio of effectiveness of law to time and resources consumed to pass it. It is difficult to compare the law-making processes of different countries in terms of efficiency because the countries are very different. I think that not state’s basic institutions determine the level of law-making efficiency, but rather the complexity of the nation.
The people throughout the history choose the system of government which suites best their values, mentality, and population. It would be wrong to say that the law-making process in a country is inefficient if people want to make decisions slowly and with much debates. And sometimes debates and compromises result if more effective laws.
In the United States, federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances combine to make it difficult for any one group to capture all of government. Instead, one faction might control one branch, another faction another branch, and so on, with the result a standoff. Than the factions must compromise to accomplish anything. It makes the process of law-making more difficult and time consuming, but at the same time it is probably the most effective political system for the United States.

This structure has prevented many abuses of power and provided the opportunity for one branch to pick up the slack when the others became sluggish. The overlapping of powers ensured by checks and balances allows every branch to act virtually every issue it chooses to.
But the system’s very advantage has become what many people consider its primary disadvantage. In their efforts to fragment power so that no branch could accumulate too much, the Founders divided power to the point where the branches sometimes cannot wield enough. In their efforts to build a government that requires a national majority to act, they built one that allows a small minority to block action. This problem has become increasingly acute as society has become increasingly complex. Like a mechanical device that operates only when all of its parts function in harmony, the system moves only when there is a consensus or compromise. Consensus is rare in a large heterogeneous society; compromise is common, but it requires a long time as well as the realization by competing interests that they cannot achieve much of what they want without compromise. Even then, compromise often results in only a partial solution. But at the same time, it is the best political system fir a extremely diverse country, where every group has different interests and wants to ensure that those interests are protected.
At best the system moves inefficiently and incrementally. At worst it moves hardly at all. The Constitution has established a government that is slow to respond to change. One political scientist, A. Spaeth Harold characterizes it as a “negative, do-nothing system.” Although other political scientists consider this characterization an exaggeration, virtually all agree that the system is structured to preserve the status quo and to respond to the group that want to maintain it.
Yet some political scientists believe the American people actually prefer this arrangement. Because the people are suspicious of government, they may be reluctant to let one party dominate it and use it to advance that party’s policies. In surveys many people –a quarter to a third of those polled—say they think it is good for one party to control the presidency and the other to control Congress. In presidential and congressional elections, more than a quarter of the voters split their ticket between the two major parties. As a result, between 1968 and 1998 opposing parties controlled the executive and legislative branches for all but six years.
Although voters elected a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, and a Democratic Congress in 1992, they elected Republican majorities for both houses of Congress in the congressional elections in 1994, and they reelected the Democratic president and retained the Republican majorities for both houses of Congress in 1996. It causes disharmony in government, when different parties represent different branches of government. It causes great number of debates and slowness to pass the law.
Very often when citizens elect a president of one party and a majority in Congress of another and wonder why there is gridlock in Washington. But the cause of delay and deadlock is not parties, but very often lack of party discipline, and not the reverse. So there is nothing wrong that there are debates in the government. Consensus and compromises are necessary for democratic country. The main point here is that it is the way people want it to be.
Americans, despite their demand for “change,” are fearful of change. When the Democratic president and Congress called for significant reforms after the 1992 elections, citizens objected. Then, when the Republican congressional leaders called for significant reforms in the opposite direction after the 1994 elections, again citizens balked. Both times parties assumed the people wanted change, but they did not.
American government is characterized by conflict and compromise. But if we all agreed, there would be no need for debate, bargaining, or compromise. All these is a necessary component of a democratic system in a large and diverse nation. Debate, compromise, and slowness in American political system do not mean it cannot be efficient. It is. Its result is effective laws for American nation.
Of course the law-making process in the United States is sometimes time consuming and may result in delay or gridlock, but the political systems of Great Britain or France are just not suitable for the country. They have greater harmony between legislative and executive branches.
In Great Britain the monarch is a ceremonial head of state, while the prime minister is head of government and leader of the majority party in the House of Commons. His power and tenure are directly linked to the legislature. The process of law-maiking is less time consuming and there is greater harmony between the executive and legislative branches because they both are controlled by the same party. Cabinet ministers are appointed by the prime minister based mainly on their record of party service. They play the leading role in government. The cabinet initiates and formulates policy. Parliamentary committees sometimes play a role in its formulation. It is fairly difficult to amend legislation that the cabinet has proposed. It makes the law-maikng process less time consuming and with less number of debates. This political system suites the British with their monarch-loving mentality.
In the United States, legislative and executive branches theoretically can be controlled by the same party if voter elect both president and congress from the Republicans or Democrats. But it happens very rarely, because it is not the way Americans want to see their government.
The French in terms of political system are somewhere between Grait Britain and the States. They have a “dual” executive, which includes a president who is popularly elected to a 7 year term and functions as head of state and exercises control of government with a prime minister. Prime minister is appointed by the president, and is leader of the majority party in the National Assembly. His power and tenure are linked both to the president and legislature. The president’s power and tenure are not linked to the legislature. The “Council of Ministers” is appointed by the president, typically reflecting his preferences and those of the prime minister. They play a significant role in government. So while to executives, the president and the prime minister may be from different parties, the legislative branch is almost completely controlled by one party because the prime minister is a leader of the majority in the National Assembly.
In Great Britain and France, unlike in the United States, government usually enjoys support of parliamentary majorities, and it makes it easier for the government and legislature to agree. In the United States, the role of individual is greater then in Grait britain and France, which causes the law-making process to be slower.
American population is very different from those of Great Britain and France and that also determines the political system the country has, where many groups should be represented. In the United States the process of making low is slower because more interests are involved and more groups then in France or Grate Britain. I am sure there is no the best political system for all countries. The same structure of government as in Grate Britain would not make the legislative process in the United States quicker. A specific system is effective in one country and absolutely non-effective in another because of culture, mentality, history, and population structure.
So as we see, both political system and law-making efficiency depend on mentality of the nation. The law-making process is as inefficient and slow as people want it to be. Of course the law-making process and the structure of government are interdependent, but the both are created by the people of the country to suit its needs. It is not the separation of powers that produces disharmony in American government, but rather the people with different ideas who are elected by the Americans.

Custom essay writing services ESSAY-911.com. Buy essays online!