I remember when I studied politics, and covered American politics, that an important characteristic of their system is checks and balances: that the President, Congress and the courts are able to hinder and help each other pass laws and make decisions. The idea behind this structure being that no single institution becomes too powerful and can jeopardise democracy, with a great emphasis on the President not being able to impose their will unchecked on the USA.
The positives of this system are clear, and indeed do appear to be very democratic. However, it can be controversial too when there is a stand-off between these institutions. We can see this as both the current President, President Trump, and his predecessor, President Obama, have faced challenges (and, in the case of the former, continues to do so) as a consequence of these checks and balances.
As we have seen, there have been several instances of people in the US going on killing sprees with guns, murdering many innocent people. In recognition of this, and feeling that access to guns is a big factor in why these massacres occur (a view I agree with: being British, although I feel there is a lot of common ground between my country and the US in terms of outlook and values, there seems to generally be a divide on the perception of guns, and I've always struggled to understand the pro-gun perspective that many Americans have), President Obama tried to restrict access to arms, only for Congress to undermine and hinder his efforts, and often make him appear impotent in the face of these tragic events.
Meanwhile, at present, President Trump is having an ongoing conflict with the courts over whether his efforts to place heavy restrictions on the ability of people from 7 predominantly Muslim countries to go to the USA are lawful, with his executive order being undermined by the courts, and President Trump now seemingly considering his next move in order to reinstate these restrictions. Controversial though this executive order is, I can sympathise with concerns over Islamist terrorism (I understand that, one the one hand, virtually all Muslims are not terrorists, while on the other, it seems that virtually all terrorists are Muslims. Therefore, President Trump's actions are affecting many innocent Muslims just because of their religion- but it is not a move completely lacking in reason and carried out with malice), and also recognise that this act reflects the promises President Trump made during his electoral campaign.
As I said, I respect the democratic credentials of the system of checks and balances, but feel that they can undermine the President when attempting to carry out decisions effectively and decisively- including the promises that their elections were based upon. This is a difficult topic, but I personally feel some relief that the British Prime Minister is generally more able to make swift decisions and pass laws without so many hindrances, allowing what is my view generally more effective leadership, whilst the high profile of the US President and their election campaigns can lead to building up of great hopes- and subsequent great disappointment, as their ability to bring about change is prolonged or prevented.
