It is seldom that members of legislative bodies, either in Switzerland or elsewhere, are competent to draft legislation satisfactorily. By the Swiss system every bill is drafted by an expert authority, familiar not only with legal forms and constitutional limitations, but also with administrative experience in the fields affected by the measure. Legislators are set free from tasks for which they are not qualified and enabled to devote more time to the discussion of the broad general principles involved in bills and to the expression of local points of view thereon. Nor does there seem to be any fear on the part of the Swiss that the executive will take advantage of this situation by making its point of view prevail unduly as against that of the legislature. For the Federal Council is not only under the general control of the legislature, but must also appear before the two houses of the legislature to explain and defend the bill it has drafted. Moreover, each branch of the legislature may reject the bill altogether or return it to the Federal Council with a recommendation that it be amended.1 As is the case in the United States, "the cantons are sovereign so far as their sovereignty is not limited by the Federal Constitution; and, as such, they exercise all the rights which are not delegated to the Federal government," and as a consequence the Federal government is restricted to delegated powers. Furthermore, by the Constitution, "the federation guarantees to the cantons their territory, their sovereignty, within the limits fixed by Article 3, their constitutions, the liberty and the rights of the people, the constitutional rights of citizens, and the rights and powers which the people have conferred on those in authority."3 Additional characteristics of democracy in Switzerland have been described previously in connection with the initiative and referendum. It is significant that the fateful decision as to whether Switzerland should become a member of the League of Nations which was passed upon by 1 This and the foregoing extracts from Government and Politics of Switzerland, by R. C. Brooks (copyright, 1918, by World Book Company, Yonkerson-Hudson, New York), are used by permission of the pubiishers. Cf., pp. 57-61. 2 W. F. Dodd, Modern Constitutions (University of Chicago Press, 1909), vol. ii, p. 257. Article 5. representatives in all other countries was submitted to a referendum for determination by the Swiss voters. PROBLEMS OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Notwithstanding the success with which the federal system of government has met in such countries as the United States, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, and certain South American countries it is still a problem whether federalism is a permanent or a temporary form of government. The tendency in all federal systems for the central authorities to gain powers and to extend their jurisdiction at the expense of the states appears to bear out the contention that federal government tends toward unitary government. In this respect the states become more in the nature of administrative districts and less of independent and autonomous government units. It has been well said that the phase of sentiment, in short, which forms a necessary condition for the formation of a federal state is that the people of the proposed state should wish to form for many purposes a single nation, yet should not wish to surrender the individual existence of each man's state or canton.1 But the political and economic conditions which formerly tended to separatism and states' rights have been profoundly modified by modern industrial developments. The interests of separate states are becoming so intertwined with the welfare of other states that the sentiment of nationalism practically everywhere gains a dominant interest. This does not mean, however, that federalism need disappear. In fact, the extraordinary growth of government functions makes it necessary to maintain and foster the active participation of local units in political affairs. According to Professor Dicey the three leading characteristics of federalism are: 1 A. V. Dicey, "Federal Government," Law Quarterly Review, vol. i, p. 81. 1. The supremacy of the constitution. 2. The distribution among bodies with limited and co-ordinate authority of the different powers of government. 3. The authority of the law courts to act as interpreters of the constitution.1 In amplification of these characteristics it is contended. that federal government requires something in the nature of a formal written constitution which stands above ordinary law and serves to delimit the relative spheres of the nation and the states. The more clear and explicit this delimitation is made, the less likely that serious controversies will arise which may interfere with the stability of the federal regime. Other federal governments have profited by the defect of the American system in this respect and more care has been exercised in the definite distribution of governmental functions. The third characteristic, the authority of the courts to act as interpreters of the constitution, is not an invariable requirement of federal government. American courts have greater authority in this respect than those of other federal systems, although the courts of Australia and Canada are charged with the duty of keeping watch that the limits prescribed by the Constitution are preserved. The Swiss people after a careful review of American experience discarded the judicial prerogative to expound the Constitution in favor of interpretation by the legislature.2 No such power to act as interpreters was lodged in the courts in the Federal government of the German Empire. And only a very limited authority of this kind is vested in the courts of the Argentine Federation. Though federalism requires something in the nature of a written instrument in which the spheres of governmental functions are carefully delimited, the upholding of the Constitution and the preser 1A. V. Dicey, "Federal Government," Law Quarterly Review, vol. i, pp. 82 ff. 2 See Constitution, Article 113. Defend or criticize the American plan of judicial determination of the sphere of powers of nation and states. vation of these limits may be placed in the hands either of the judiciary or of the legislature. The chief problems of federal government are, then: How can the balance between federal and state powers be maintained? Will the central governments gradually extend their powers and functions and consequently curtail the powers of the states composing the federation until such states are little more than administrative districts? Where should the final authority to interpret constitutions and laws under the federal form of government rest? Can the federal form of government be applied to the organization for the settlement of international disputes and the determination of matters relative thereto? Are the principles of democracy and federalism compatible with a strongly centralized government? Prepare an answer to the above questions in the light of American experience. SUPPLEMENTARY READINGS See references to preceding chapter and the following authors: EDWARD PORRITT, Evolution of the Dominion of Canada, especially Chaps. VIII-XIII (World Book Company, 1918). ROBERT C. BROOKS, Government and Politics of Switzerland, especially Chaps. III-VII (World Book Company, 1918). ARTHUR P. POLEY, The Federal Systems of the United States and the British Empire (Little, Brown & Co., 1913). A condensed description of the salient features of the federal systems of the United States, Canada, and Australia, with some interesting comparisons and observations on the working of federal government. PARLIAMENTARY CHAPTER III VERSUS PRESIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS OF THE relation of the executive, with its divisions and departments, to the representative assembly constitutes one of the greatest problems of modern democratic governments. In order to appreciate and understand the difficulties involved in the organization of the legislative and executive departments in their relation to one another, it is necessary to describe in detail the essential features of the two leading forms of representative and democratic government. The one form, the parliamentary system, is exemplified in England, Canada, Australia, and South Africa; the other form, the presidential system, is found in the United States and in a number of the South American countries. Each of these forms has certain principles which can be clearly understood only by means of comparison. As the tendency in democratic countries has been in the direction of parliamentary government, it seems desirable to present first the features and principles of this form. By so doing, not only the presidential system of the United States is rendered more intelligible, but also certain recent changes and modifications are explained. Parliamentary government is the forerunner and prototype from which other forms of democratic government have developed. THE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IN ENGLAND Parliamentary government had its origin in the long contest in England between the king and the representatives of the nobility and of the landed estates. These representa |