Thursday, May 10, 2012

2012 - Question #16 –country context question

(A)          Explain two reasons we would expect the British political system to be more amenable to change than the Iranian system.
(B)          In terms of being open to change, how would the Mexican system compare with the British and Iranian systems? Why?

See pp. 65-67, 151-152, and 137-138 in What You Need to Know

1 comment:

Ken Wedding said...

From Anonymous:

"A) Amendments are easier to pass in the UK than in Iran because: 1) their smaller decision-making body 2) secular principle. To make an amendment in the UK, the discussion and subsequent decision is made by the cabinet and the PM, respectively. Also, religious principles do not have to be addressed.

"On the other hand, Iran has to both address the amendment with a much larger discussion-making body, and ensure the adherence to its state religion -- a much longer, complicated process.

"B) The Mexican government's openness to change is higher than the Iranian government, but lower than the British government. The Mexican legislature is comprised with many political parties, and occasionally does not agree with the president's policies. Since it is secular, it bypasses the additional process of religion adherence (thus, more efficient that Iran's government). But its various parties can cause gridlock (which makes it less efficient than the UK's collective consensus)."

This response earns one of two possible points for the first part. Iran does have to deal with religious dogma and authority when making and changing policy.

However, the Majlis is about a third the size of the House of Commons.

This response earns both possible points for the second part of the question. The analysis is very good.

Total: 3 of 4 possible points.