Thursday, April 21, 2011
Question No. 14
You can subscribe to these questions using the RSS feed (the broadcast icon in the address bar), and you'll see them in your news reader when I post them.
You can submit an answer using the "Questions" e-mail link at the What You Need to Know web site. (Look in the lower, right-hand section of that page.)
If you submit the earliest best answer, I'll post your answer (without your name) and a critique here a week after the question was posted. It will be in the "Comments" section for that question.
Here's Question No. 14 (It's a Conceptual Analysis question.):
The heads of government in Russia and the United Kingdom are not directly elected by voters.
•Explain how each is chosen.
•Describe a significant similarity in their roles as heads of government.
•Identify and describe one major difference between the sources of authority for these two executives.
(See pp. 57 - 62 and 74-78 in What You Need to Know.)
Don't neglect the What You Need to Know Facebook pages
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
1. The head of government in Russia, the prime Minister (Putin) is appointed by the president (and then approved by Duma). The head of government in the UK, also prime minister, is the head of the majority party in the Parliament.
2. Both prime ministers have the power to enact laws. The Prime Minister is Russia can enact decrees, which are like laws, but don't need legislative approval. The Prime Minister in the UK guides the legislative procses and impliments their party policies.
3. The Prime Minister in the UK gains their authority through the citizens. The citizens vote for their party and their party chooses who gets to be the prime minister (but the citizens are still happy because their party ideologies are still being represented) In Russia, the Prime Minister is appointed by the president. Although the president is also voted for by the people, it tends to be more corrupt (opposing candidates cannot run because they are sent to jail, etc)
Two points out of two possible for part 1.
No points out of two possible for part 2. Neither the Russian chairman of government nor the British PM has "the power to enact laws..." That is within the authority of the legislatures. The Russian president, not the head of government can issue decrees with the force of law unless vetoed by the Duma.
One point out of two possible for part 3. The description of the source of authority for the British PM is good, but the difference between that and the source of authority for the Russian chairman of government is not.
From Anonymous:
"Russia's head of government, the prime minister, is directly chosen by the president and then approved by the Duma. UK's head of government, the prime minister, is chosen as leader by the majority party (or in the case of a hung parliament, the the largest minority party gets to choose.)
"Both prime ministers can propose legislation to legislature for debate. (For Russia, it is the Duma. For the UK, it is the Parliament.)
"The roles in government of the two PM's are vastly different. In Russia, the PM is overshadowed by the president. The prime minister plays a more supporting role, and cannot edict laws with a force of decree. On the other hand, the PM in the UK plays a far more superior role and has the power to edict laws with a force of decree."
==========================
This response earns both possible points for the first part of the question.
This response earns the one point possible for the second part of the question.
This response earns one of the two possible points for the third part of the question. The assertion of superior power for the president in Russia is questionable given the role Putin played as premier.
Total 3 of 4.
Post a Comment