Australia and Morocco are both constitutional monarchies; the two countries, though they both claim to be democratic, uphold the liberal democratic features to vastly different extents. Democracy, as a broad term, is “government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.”. There are a number of factors that indicate the level of democracy: the manner in which the country was established, the application of the separation of powers and constitutionalism, and the nature of the legislative and executive bodies. The nations of Morocco and Australia are vastly different in economy and culture, but most importantly in their Political Structure, despite the name they share.
Unlike some other democratic countries, a prime minister can remain prime minister for as long as they have the support of their party and their party wins Federal elections by having the majority of votes.
Paragraph 1: How they were founded
How australia P + L system adopted
Democratic (but lol only white men) – haha
Constitutional conventions
Westminister traditions
Chow country X’s P+L system adopted
Compare
Australia was established as a nation through the federalization of six states into one nation, called federation, in 1901. A federation requires that there are two levels of government: one central government and two or more regional governments. Each has decision-making powers for a specific geographical area, and has the legal authority to make laws over its own areas of responsibilities. This gave it independence from the former British rulers, without breaking ties completely. As the popularity of Australian independence grew, multiple conventions were held from 1891-1900 to draft the constitution. These were called the constitutional conventions, and were essentially the writing of Australia’s constitution; these continued until Queen Elizabeth II signed the Constitutional Bill. A referendum was called in each state to decide whether they would join, showing democracy from the starting of the process.
Due to Australia’s British colonial past, Australia’s adopted political system has extremely strong Westminster traditions. The Westminster System, as defined by Civics and Citizenship by J.Willmot, is”Any political system based on the convention followed by the United Kingdom Parliament at Westminster in London. The Westminster system is the process of responsible parliamentary government. Such procedures are generally based on convention rather than explicit constitutional provision.” Australia adopted many of these conventions, that are not outlined in the constitution, but is an unwritten practice concerning the powers, processes, and procedures of a political system that has general acceptance and is consciously followed in a society’s political activity. For example, the Australian constitution does not mention the position of a Prime Minister, the Cabinet, or political parties. These were assumed by the writers of the constitution as conventions, adopted from the UK’s political system.
Morocco also gained its independence from foreign rulers. First founded in 789 by Idris 1, and until 1956, was ruled by a series of independent dynasties, gaining its independence from foreign rulers first through the relinquishment of the protectorates of France and Spain, made final in the Joint Declaration of April 1956, and then through the establishment of its own constitution in 1962. Both Australia and Morocco became fully independent nations through the creation of their constitutions. Morocco’s constitution…
In contrast, Morocco has a much stronger monarchal system than Australia: it is still officially known as the ‘Kingdom of Morocco’. Morocco’s King, King Mohammed VI ( a direct descendant of the Prophet Mohammed), is the Chief of State (equivalent to the head of state), whose role is as “the public persona that officially represents the national unity and legitimacy of a sovereign state”, but more specifically “includes the name and title of the titular leader of the country who represents the state at official and ceremonial functions but may not be involved with the day-to-day activities of the government”. However, though in Australia the monarch (Queen Elizabeth II of England), is also the Head of State, the two have vastly different roles.
The Australian Monarch plays a ceremonial figurehead role, with little actual power and presence in day-to-day government, while the Moroccan Monarch has much of the Executive power, and plays a much greater role in the governing of the nation. This is despite his role as ‘Chief of State’ supposedly preventing him from taking part in the day-to-day government activities. This is because the whole architecture of the constitution gives the monarch a supreme position without much accountability, though there have been attempts to address this through constitutional reform (1996 and 2011).
Paragraph 2: Separation of Power
How Australia applies separation of power
Responsible Parliamentary government
Independent Judiciary
Bicameralism
Checks and balances
How Country X applies S of P
The Separation of Power, a term coined by the Baron de Montesquieu but originating from the English Magna Carta (1215), is probably the most important aspect of democracy, and is a feature of liberal democracy. It is defined as “the vesting of the legislative, executive, and judiciary powers of government in separate bodies”, and the degree to which it is applied is highly important when regarding nations systems of governments. The idea behind this is to stop the concentration of power in governing bodies, and thereby stop corruption.
Australia addresses the Separation of Power clearly in its constitution through the creation of independent Executive, Judicial and Legislative bodies, as does Morocco, though less clearly. The Independent Judiciary is a key part of this, based on the idea that “courts should not be subject to improper influence from the other branches of government, or from private or partisan interests”. This achieves the application of law, in theory, free from bias. It also goes a long way to prevent political corruption. Australia adopted the British model of Judicial Independence, laying it out clearly in the constitution and then rigidly enforcing it. Judges are appointed by the Prime Minister on advice from the attorney-general and cabinet, and have an enforced retirement age of 70. The High Court is the apex of the system, while the Supreme Court is for the Moroccan system.
Morocco’s Constitution (2011) reserves one chapter, known as Article 107 for the separation of the judiciary, clearly declaring it “independent of the legislative power and the executive power”, as well as declaring it as the “judicial power” rather than the “judicial authority” of the 1996 constitution, a significant semantic shift. However, the King has a major role in justice sector policymaking and oversight as well as overseeing the work of judiciary, which has led to many Moroccans believing the judiciary to be ineffective in the past. Article 108 of the 2011 constitution provides that no judge may be removed from a case (without legal proceedings), which has led to a more independent judiciary than before. However, judges are appointed for life by the monarch, which is not particularly democratic. After analysis, it is clear that the judiciary is fundamentally related to the power of the king as the head of state, and the application of its independence is debatably not strong.
Responsible government, an aspect of separation of power, is the idea that the government must have majority of support from Lower House. Defined as a system within which “the executive body, the government, Cabinet and Ministry, is drawn from, and accountable to, the legislative branch.” In practice, this means that elections to the Parliament are the means by which the people decide who shall govern. Australia and Morocco both apply this through the powers of their respective lower houses in their bicameral systems; for both countries, the lower house is formally known as the “House of Representatives” (Informally, the ‘Majli al-Nuwab’ for Morocco). Both these houses can dissolve the government through a vote of no-confidence, and require the government to change if the party majority in the lower house shifts; the shift occurs by the votes of the public, meaning the government is effectively controlled by the will of the people. However, the voting systems within the nations differ: in Morocco they use the electoral college system, while in Australia they use the 1:1 system. This may slightly skew results, but both are fairly representative of the desires of the people, and there are arguments to be made for and against both systems.
Bicameralism, as mentioned above, is a system in which “the legislators are divided into two separate assemblies, chambers or houses”. It was created to keep all states in a nation happy, with smaller states getting their equal representation in the upper house and larger states getting their proportional representation in the lower house.
Checks and balances….
for as the Baron de Montesquieu said “power checks power”
Unlike some other democratic countries, a prime minister can remain prime minister for as long as they have the support of their party and their party wins Federal elections by having the majority of votes.
This series of checks and balances means that each of the three branches of government can limit the powers of the other branches, this means that no branch can become too powerful.
Paragraph 4: Nature of leg and exec bodies in australia
Roles
Powers
appointment/removal
Governor General, Prime Minister, and MP’s
Nature of Leg and exec bodies in Country X
Compare
The natures of the legislative and executive bodies within a nation are the deciding features as to its level of democracy, and so when comparing the two nations of Morocco and Australia, it is highly important to examine both bodies closely. Many of Australia’s political features are based off the British Westminster System. Both nations apply a Bicameral parliamentary system, which divides the legislative arm into two bodies (the upper and lower houses) as discussed above. The main law-making body in the Australian arm of legislature is the house of representatives (whose powers are laid out in the constitution); their main function is to make amendments to laws already in existence and to consider and pass new bills, it consists of 150 members who are elected each from an electoral division. This lower house also determines the government, the same role played by the lower house in Morocco. However, in Morocco, the body making these choices is less clear, with power divided unequally between the King, Prime Minister and Upper house. The upper house looks to deal with the more mundane stuff: revise the constitution, help with budgetary matters, approve bills, question ministers, and establish ad hoc commissions of inquiry to investigate the government’s actions. It consists of 270 members, elected through indirect voting, for a term of nine years. For both Australia and Morocco, the lower house has the ability to dissolve the government through a vote of no-confidence.
In Australia, the House of Representatives also debates legislation and ministerial policy statements, discusses matters that are important to the public, represents the citizens concerns, and controls government expenditure. For example, the ‘Social Services Legislation Amendment’ Bill 2017 originates from and is currently before the house of representatives. The Upper House’s, the Senate’s, main function is to review legislation from the House of Representatives – it is the house of review. The Senate can also introduce or amend proposed laws, unless the bill imposes taxation, or authorises government service expenditure. Through the use of proportional voting, twelve Senators are elected from each state, and serve a term of six years. Each of the territories elect 2 Senators who serve a term of only 3 years.
The executive branch is the body which ensures that the laws are upheld through enforcement. The Head of Government is “a generic term used for either the highest or second highest official in the executive branch” and they are in charge of these operations. In Australia, the executive body is the government, with the Head of Government being the Prime Minister (Malcolm Turnbull at this moment). Consisting of the PM and Ministers, they meet in cabinet (confidential meetings) and are responsible for developing bills, introducing legislation, managing government departments and implementing laws. This executive power is also shared (in part) by the Queen, who is represented by the Governor-General. However, this power is hardly ever called upon, and is mostly used by the government. Apart from the King, the executive branch in Morocco is comprised of sovereign ministries, designed with limited discretion to take authoritative actions independently. The powerful Ministries of Interior, Justice, Foreign Affairs, Religious Affairs, and the Secretary General of the GOM remain the province of the King rather than the Prime Minister, answering directly to the monarch and Royal Cabinet. At the very least, their lack of accountability to parliament skews the system of checks and balances on executive powers. Though in theory much of the executive power should rest with the PM, this is not the case in practice; this issue has been addressed unsuccessfully before in the form of constitutional reform.
The structure of the legislative bodies in Australia and Morocco are reasonably similar; the biggest differences between the two nations are evident in the executive body(s). Both Australia and Morocco have a Bicameral system of government as well as a system of responsible government (as discussed above). In Australia, the executive power rests mainly with the government, any residual power remaining with the representative of the Queen, the Governor-General. If we accept that democracy is “Government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system,” then Australia is a highly democratic nation, particularly when compared with Morocco. As you can’t elect a king, the high amount of executive power residing with the King of Morocco is fundamentally undemocratic.
Paragraph 3: Constitutionalism
How constitutionalism is applied
Links to rule of law
Referendum
Strong written only 8/44 changes
Rights protection
How country X applies constitutionalism
Compare
Constitutionalism is the Fundamental set of laws that defines the limits to the power of government, and originates from the Magna Carta (1215). The constitution of a nation is applied at different levels, depending on said nation. Australia’s constitution, as stated above, was written before but took effect during the 1901 federation; many of the conventions of it are unwritten, as it was assumed that they would be taken from the British system by the writers. The Rule of Law is established by the constitution, essentially enforcing the idea that the law applies equally to everyone. Defined as “Restrictions on the abuse of power by setting these powers out it to well-defined laws”, the Rule of Law in Australia formally ensures the separation of powers, the ability of the people to openly oppose the current administration and the equal application of law, through the written constitution. This is strongly enforced within the country, opposite to Morocco. Morocco’s enforcement of Rule of Law is relatively weak, with institutional deficiencies and corruption presenting major problems. The call for the reform of it over the last few decades has been very strong, momentum is strong and some problems have been addressed, for example the adoption of a new family law in 2004. More generally, there is a widely held perception that corruption is tolerated, that a political and security elite act with impunity, and that strong actions are taken against those who would challenge power as evidenced by the recent arrest and imprisonment of members of the press.
Conclusion
In conclusion, though Australia and Morocco both share the name of a “constitutional monarchy”, a form of democracy, they apply this to extremely different degrees.
Australia and Myanmar (Burma) are two distinctly different countries in terms of culture, economy and political structure. Both countries claim to be democratic (governed by the whole population through elected representatives) however the extent to which each country upholds the features of a liberal democracy vastly differs. Australia is a relatively new country that has always shown strong support for the democratic system, whereas Myanmar has had a rather complicated political history of corruption and dictatorship, eventually resulting in the hybrid system of military rule and democracy it has today. The difference between this and the democratic system in Australia can be seen in each countries application of the separation of powers, constitutionalism, the nature of the legislative and executive bodies and the manner in which each country was established.
The separation of powers is a feature of the liberal democracy where the governmental authority is divided into three branches: legislative (Parliament or Senate), executive (President or Prime Minister) and the judiciary (judicial or court system) It was originally created to prevent the concentration of power and is applied in both Australia and Myanmar.
In Australia, a strict separation of powers is not always evident as the Australian parliament is essentially a combination of the traditional Westminster System, the doctrine of “responsible government” and the US version of the separation of powers. However, there are a number of separation features enforced by the Australian government in order to prevent corruption and tyranny and to create a stable democratic society. Bicameralism, or the division of legislators into two houses is one of these features and (in Australia) is composed of the Upper House (which votes on only legislative matters) and the Lower House (which can vote against the government). The system of checks and balances was also employed as a way to allow for one branch of government to limit another.
In Myanmar, the separation of powers is recognised in the country’s constitution, however it is clear that the executive body retains control over the legislature and judiciary. This is largely due to Burma’s history of over 50 years of military rule. In the legislature 25% of seating is reserved for military representatives. This then creates an imbalance in the true representation of the Burmese people, and is one of the reasons why Myanmar is not considered a “true” democratic nation.
Constitutionalism — the adherence of a country to abide by a constitution or a body of fundamental principles according to which a country is governed, is also applied at different levels in each country. The application of Australia’s constitution dates back to 1901, whereas Myanmar’s modern constitution was created in 2008. For the Australian constitution to be altered, it requires the approval of a referendum bill by a majority in each federal parliamentary house, followed by an approval in a referendum by a majority of electors and voters nationwide. Constitutionalism is also closely tied to the rule of law, which states that everyone is equal before the law. In Australia, a breach of rule is uncommon