英美政治对比研究英文论文

The regime of The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy: The politics of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland takes place in the framework of a constitutional monarchy, in which the Monarch is head of state and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is the head of government. Executive power is exercised by the UK government and the devolved governments of Scotland and Wales and the Executive of Northern Ireland. Legislative power is vested in both the government and the two chambers of Parliament, the House of Commons and the House of Lords, as well as in the Scottish parliament and Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies. The judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature, though several senior judges are still members of the House of Lords, which is currently the highest court of the UK for civil cases and the highest court of England and Wales for criminal cases. The regime of US is Separation of powers: Separation of powers is a political doctrine under which the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government are kept distinct, to prevent abuse of power. This US form of separation of powers is widely known as "checks and balances". Congress has the sole power to legislate for the United States. Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may not delegate its lawmaking responsibilities to any other agency. Executive power is vested in the President. The principal responsibility of the President is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." By using these words, the Constitution does not require the President to personally enforce the law; rather, officers subordinate to the President may perform such duties. Judicial power — the power to decide cases and controversies—is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress. The judges must be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, hold office for life and receive compensations that may not be diminished during their continuance in office. Separation of powers is not absolute; it is instead qualified by the doctrine of checks and balances. James Madison wrote that the three branches "should not be so far separated as to have no constitutional control over each other." The system of checks and balances is designed to allow each branch to restrain abuse by each other branch. Strict separation of powers did not operate in Britain, a country whose political structure served in most instances as a model for the government created by the US Constitution. In the UK, the King-in-Parliament (the King acting with the consent of the House of Lords and House of Commons) was the supreme lawmaking authority. The executive branch acted in the name of the King - it was known as "His Majesty's Government" - as did the judiciary. The King's Ministers were in most cases members of one of the two Houses of Parliament, and the Government needed to sustain a majority in the House of Commons. One minister, the Lord Chancellor, was at the same time the sole judge in the Court of Chancery and the presiding officer in the House of Lords. Thus, one may conclude that the three branches of British government often violated the strict principle of separation of powers, even though there were many occasions when the different branches of the government disagreed with each other.

内容摘要]：英国创立的第一套西方资本主义政治制度体系被誉为西方政治制度的源泉与典范；美国则在吸收、借鉴英国的基础上,形成了当代资本主义国家中最为完善的政治制度。我们要吸收借鉴两国政治制度中的优秀因素，就必然需要首先对两国的制度有准确、清晰的比较和把握。本文拟从政治制度的核心部分——宪法、政党、选举三个方面进比较，以期对我国的政治制度建设和改革提供良好的借鉴。 [关键词]：英美政治制度比较 [Content summary ]: The first set of western capitalist political systems created byBritish are praised as the source and model of the western political system. On the basis of absorbing, drawn lessons from Britain ,. has formed the most perfect political system in the contemporary capitalist countries. If we want to absorb and draw lessons from the outstanding factors inboth of the country’s political systems, we need to make an accurate, clear comparison and assurance to the systems of the two countries above all . This article is drafted from the key part of the political system --Constitution, political party, elect three respects to compare and expect offer political institutional reform and improvements in our country with good references. [The keyword ]: Great Britain and AmericanPolitical System Compare 政治制度（Political Regime）属于上层建筑范畴，一般是指与本国的社会性质相适应的国家权利机构和基本制度。“政治制度与人类社会的各种制度一样，是历史发展的产物，带有时间与空间的烙印。”1 300多年前，英国资产阶级革命后，资本主义国家逐步建立和实践了民主政治，颁布了宪法并逐步实行宪政，使资本主义在各个领域都得到了长足的发展。 英国创立了第一套西方资本主义政治制度体系，一向被誉为西方政治制度的源泉与典范；美国则在吸收、借鉴英国政治制度的基础上,结合本国国情加以调整，使本国的政治制度体系趋于完善。英国作为欧洲民族国家是在君主制的基础上形成的，当时利用公法来限制君主的权力，并依据公法设立政府机构，公法比较发达，因此一般把政府机构和宪法看作政治制度的核心；与具有明确国家观念的英国不同，美国的公法主要是用于处理政府与个人的关系，并由司法机构进行法律监督，因此有时把政治制度等同于政府形式。2 英美两国政治制度具有相同的理论基础：“天赋人权”学说和“三权分立”原则；政治制度的具体内容都包括议会制度、选举制度、司法制度、政府制度、公务员制度和政党制度等；都标榜“人民民主”，以代议制为民主的主要形式；政权体制都实行分权制衡和“法治”原则的特点。而最根本的是作为资本主义国家政治制度的两个典型代表，英美两国在维护资产阶级利益、维护资主义私有制度、实行资产阶级专政等方面具有相同的本质。但在具体政治制度层面两国又各自呈现不同的特点，本文仅从宪法、政党制度、选举制度三个角度探讨比较英美两国的政治制度。 一、英美宪法之比较 ——英国的成文与不成文法与美国的成文法 英国宪法是长期政治历史发展的产物，它没有统一、完整的书面形式，而是由成文的法律和不成文的习惯、惯例构成。主要包括：第一、历史上带有规约性质的宪法文件。如1215年的《自由大宪章》（the Great Chastes），1628年的《权利请愿书》（the Retition of Rights），和1689年的《权利法案》（the Biu of Rights） 等。第二、由议会制定的具有宪法性质的法律。如1679年的《人身保护法》（the Habeas Corpus Act），1701年的《王位继承法》（the Act ofSettlement）等。第三、宪法性的法院判例。如1678年确立法官特权的贺威尔案（Howll'sCose）。第四、普通法中的某些原则和规定，如关于国王特权的制度。第五、宪法惯例。惯例虽然不能为法院适用，但在英国政治生活中发挥着重要作用，如议会每年至少举行一次，王权由大臣实际行使等。 英国宪法既不能以一道或数道公文列举，也不能以过去和现在的时间来严格区别，它缺乏谨严明确的内容，也缺乏首尾完整的体系。与美国宪法有所区别。英宪的所有规则按照有无实效为标准分为英宪的法律和英宪的典则两部分。前者包括英宪的法理、法规，后者包括典俗、成训、惯例等。英国宪法就是以法律和典则两类规则构成的体系，按照这一体系的规则，英格兰的主权得以合法运用并分配于政府和人民之间。典则部分一般为非成文的，法律部分既有非成文的要素，又具有成文的要素。 英国宪法具有与美国宪法不同的一些自身特点。首先，英宪具有柔性宪法的特点，它随时可以被议会变易或修改，与美国宪法的刚性形成了对比；第二，英国宪法具有保守性。英格兰具有从事改良事业的传统，历代制度既因袭前代制度而又有所改革。这种遵守成规的特点成为英国宪法的一大特色。由此得出第三，英国宪法具有连续性。这种连续性取决于英格兰民族生活的连续性。最后，英国宪法还具有名实不符的性质，就是说理论与实际往往不能一致。因为英国政治是从独裁政治渐渐发展成为立宪政治的，政治体制已变，而某些法律、典则却遗留下来，使理论与事实往往不能一致。 可以说，英国是世界资产阶级宪政之母。3 （美国宪法图示）4 美国宪法贯彻了彻底的三权分立，规定了立法，司法和行政的分立。国会、联邦法院和总统各司其职，乃至联邦政府、州政府和地方政府之间分工也十分明确。从国会来看，美国的国会不可否认受到英国议会制度“蓝本”的影响，但是从根本讲是由于北美大陆的土壤适合这种制度的成长。国会的权力并非仅仅是“掌管钱包的手”(管理钱财)，国会首先是立法机构。除非联邦法院宣布法律违宪，否则，国会通过的法律对于任何人都有约束力。这使得国会在许多方面能够对于国家的社会生活表示态度。可以通过法律形式授权给某个部门或个人，也可以通过法律形式限制其权力。其次才是财政权，还有对外宣战权、对政府官员和总统实施弹劾、复选总统和副总统。同意总统有关任命、通过本国与外国的条约等重要权力和就制定和执行立法以及其他事项进行调查的广泛权力。联邦法院是美国三权分立与制衡中的一个重要砝码，除了行政方面功能和立法功能外，最重要的是监督性功能和司法性功能．法官享有宪法地位，被任命为维护宪法的卫士；最高法院是执法机关，法官在解释宪法和法律方面有最后发言权。总统是国家元首，一切重大仪式和代表国家的活动都要出席；作为最高行政长官，负责制定国家的日常政策，有权任命各部部长、驻外大使和联邦法院的法官；作为最高统帅，有权指挥整个军队，管理“核按钮”及至在关键时刻启动之；还拥有否决立法权、外交决策权以及影响本党的能力；总统的实际权力远远超过宪法中的简单条文。 美国宪法还规定了三权之间的制衡。⑴从立法与行政的关系看：国会拥有相当权力，总统对于官员的任命，须经过国会参议院同意才能生效；总统与外国缔结的条约，只有当参议院2／3票数通过才能生效； 国会甚至拥有复选总统、弹劫总统等等权力。同时，总统拥有更大的权力，总统有权介入立法领域，可以向国会提出咨文，成文国会立法的依据；可以向国会提出法案，可以在特别情况下以行政特权为理由建议两院召开立法会议；可以通过本党议员和本党议会党团的领袖来影响某一法案的命运等等。国会虽然能够制定法律，以法律形式对于总统进行约束，但国会的法律只有总统签署后才能生效；总统虽然能够否决国会所制定法律，但当国会两院都以2／3票数重新通过该法律，则可推翻总统否决的权力。 ⑵从总统与联邦法院的关系看，总统可以任命法官，有权赦免一切罪犯，控制着警察，监狱等机构，有行政裁判权。同时，法官一经任命可以终身任职，可以作出对总统不利的裁定；法院掌握司法审查权，可以宣布总统的行政立法违宪等等。此外，国会同法院的关系也是相互制衡的。 美国宪法规定了分权制衡关系，但是没有否定在这一基础上的合作。在和平时期，三方面的制衡多于合作；在动乱或者紧急事件中，三方面的合作多于制衡。由于以总统为首的行政部门所维护的利益从根本上与国会一致，因此在大多数情况下，国会对总统采取忍让默许甚至支持的态度。不仅在国内事务上，国会往往与总统采取合作态度；在战争和外交问题上，法院遵循“司法依从”和“政治问题回避”等原则，也常常与总统合作，放任总统的行为。这种时而分权，时而合作，具体什么时候怎样表现，主要取决于美国统治集团的利益和 民族国家的利益。 英美宪法比较图示： 项目 英国（责任内阁制） 美国（三权分立） 选出 首相由下院多数党领袖担任，对国会负责 总统由选民间接投票选出 与国会之关系 有权解散国会，国会亦可罢免内阁，相互牵制 既无权解散国会，国会亦无权罢免总统，关系平行 行政权 行政权操纵在首相手中，国王并不负实际行政责任 行政权操纵在总统手上，是握有行政权的国家元首 首长的任命 由首相自兼，各部大臣由首相在同党议员中选任 为国务卿，兼外交部长，与其他各部首长同为总统所选任 任期 无特别限制，首相出任与否，全看能否取得下院多数议席而定 任期为四年，再当选得连任一次，任满则解职（亦有例外，如罗斯福） 继任 只设首相一人，遇首相出缺，则下院多数党再举领袖继任 设总统，副总统各一人，遇总统出缺，由副总统继任 二、英美政党制度之比较 ——英美的两党制 英国是现代政党政治的发源地，是实行两党制的典型国家。主宰英国政坛100多年以本上是两个重要政党，先是托利党和辉格党，继而是保守党和自由党，后来为保守党和工党。英国政党制度具有以下特点： ⑴同议会内阁制相结合，执政党和反对党在形式上界限分明。英国实行的是议会内阁制，有上下两议院。上议院议员不由选举产生，而是由贵族世袭或国王任命，与政党无关。下议院由选举产生。两大政党靠竞选争夺下议院议席，有获得多数席位的政党组阁，该党的领袖担任内阁首相，掌握政府权力。组阁的政党便是执政党。执政党既掌握内阁的实权，又掌握下议院的实权。选举中未获得多数的政党便是在野党或反对党。反对党负有监督政府的责任，可以组成有各部大臣的“影子内阁”。执政党和反对党在形式上界限分明。英国法律规定，下议院每5年改选一次，但实际上改选是不定期的，因为议会有权自行决定延长任期，同时首相也可以随时呈请英王解散议会，提前大选。 ⑵两大政党均采取集中制。主要表现在：无论中央或地方，每个政党都有健全的组织；有严格的组织纪律；特别是党内对议会投票有严格的规定。在议会的重要投票中，各政党都要求其党员作为一个集团，按照领导人的意图投票。否则，会受到严厉处罚。 美国也是实行两党制的典型国家，美国政党制度具有以下特点：⑴同民主共和体相联系，党的主要活动是进行总统竞选。美国是总统制国家。美国政党的主要活动是进行总统竞选。竞选获胜的政党为执政党，失败者为反对党。美国国会议员虽然也是有选举产生，但两大政党在议会中席位的多少与执政地位无关。在美国，一个政党只要在总统竞选中获胜，即使它在国会选举中失败，也不会影响它的执政地位。 ⑵政党组织松散，没有严密的组织和纪律。。 ⑶两党制比较稳定。美国的两党制萌芽于联邦党和反联邦党的对立，后来形成了共和党与民主党的竞争。在美国历史上，也常常出现第三党运动，但从未获得成功。两大政党轮流执政的格局一直比较稳定。 英美政党制度比较。两国尽管都实行两党制，但有很大不同，主要表现在： ⑴从属的政体不同。 英国实行的是君主立宪制，英国国王是世袭的国家元首。从宪法规定上看，英王独揽大权。实际上是英王的一切活动要服从与内阁的安排。获得多数席位的政党上台组阁并掌握政府权力，执政党领袖担任内阁首相，从而使政党与内阁紧密交织在一起。美国是民主共和制国家，实行的是总统制。总统是国家元首，掌握国家大权。两大政党的活动主要表现在总统选举上。获胜的执政党在国会选举中失利并不影响其执政党的地位。 ⑵组织结构和活动方式不同。英国两大政党采取集中制，党有比较统一的政治主张、组织机构和社会基础。党对议会投票有严格的纪律。美国两大政党组织松散，没有严密的组织系统，没有严格的纪律，甚至没有固定的基层党员。两大政党没有明确的政治纲领，只有竞选纲领。党的主要活动主要是搞竞选，人们形象地称美国的政党是“选举组织”，美国的竞选是“象驴之战”。5两国的政党制度相比之下，最突出的是，美国不存在执政党与在野党问题，议会中多数党与少数党的权力差别不大；且执政党力量远远大于反对党，反对党不易向执政党挑战；同时政党组织松散，议会中党员的凝聚力更弱。 三、英美选举制度之比较 ——英美的普选制 英美两国的选举制度是以普选制实现权力委托的，实行普选制是两国政治制度的共同特征，但由于两国的政治经济条件和历史传统不同，两国实行的普选制也有所区别。 英国的普选制实际上只是公民选举下院议员的制度，代议机关中的国王和上院都是非选举产生的。根据宪法惯例，内阁政府由议会的多数党组成。正是采取这样的选举办法，选民选举下院，下院多数党组成政府，使得英国的代议制政府成为典型的内阁责任制政府。它产生于议会，并对议会负有直接的政治责任，对选民负间接的政治责任，前者表现为议会的倒戈权，后者表现为首相有权请求国王解散议会，重新大选；若选举失败，则由反对党上台；若胜利，则继续执政。加上两党轮流执政的原则，他们可直接影响公民的普选，这就保证了英国代议制政府的稳定性。 美国普选制实行的范围，与英国明显不同，不仅国会两院的议员，而且作为国家元首和政府首脑的总统及副总统，都是由公民直接产生的。美国总统及其领导的行政机关，对国会不存在任何关系。它们只有到选举的时候才各自向选民负责。平时都只对联邦宪法负责。因此，它们之间，仅仅是宪法上规定的相互“制衡”关系。 英美两国的选举制度尽管不同，但都操纵在资产阶级政党的手中。因此，选举制度与政党制度紧密联系在一起。是政党制度和议会制度的基础和重要内容。 总之，通过以上分析，可以看出： 英美两国的政治制度可说是同中有异，异中有同。既包含着现代西方政治制度的基本特征和当今时代特征所产生的共同性，也具有因各国的现实国情（主要是政体和社会经济基础）不同和民族特点、历史传统不同而形成的差异性。英美两国的政治制度都是西方资产阶级革命的产物，同封建主义政治制度相比具有历史进步性。不但为人类政治文明的发展提供了新鲜的血液，而且为社会生产的发展开辟了广阔的前景。参考书目： ①王惠岩主编：《比较政治制度》，吉林：吉林大学出版社1998年版。 ②吴大英主编：《西方国家政治制度剖析》，北京：经济管理出版社1996年版。 ③宋玉波：《比较政治制度》，北京：法律出版社，2001年版。 ④高金海等：《当代西方政治制度》，北京：中共中央党校出版社1999年版。 ⑤胡康大：《英国的政治制度》，北京：社会科学文献出版社1993年版。

从立法、司法、行政三个角度去阐述，再加上英国的律师二元制体系去比较英美政体的异同点：相同：都有议会，且议会拥有立法权不同：英国是君主立宪制，美国是民主共和制英国的国家元首是国王，没有实权；美国是总统拥有最高行政权及军权原因：1 英国资产阶级革命的主要矛盾是资产阶级同封建统治阶级的矛盾，而美国是资产阶级同殖民统治者的矛盾。2 资本主义的发展需要稳定的外部环境，英国利用了君主而美国由于前身是殖民地所，建国初期战乱不断所以需要一个相对集中的统治形式，因此，英国采用君主立宪而美国用总统共和制。3 客观上，英国资产阶级革命较早，资产阶级的力量有限，实行君主立宪其实是资产阶级对封建势力的妥协；而美国资产阶级革命时资本主义又经过一段时间的发展，力量壮大，假如美国有国王也归被推翻的。英国是君主立宪，美国是共和制，因为美国在独立以前没有自己君主，以英国君主为自己的君主，独立后就没有君主了。美国是总统制，总统是内阁首脑，英国是议会制，首相是内阁首脑，内阁对议会负责。因为在美国独立前，各殖民地由英国派驻的总督，也有代表总督和当地人民的议员组成的议会，殖民地政府主要由总督管理，当时大部分欧洲国家国王仍是内阁首脑，所以独立后美国自然延续这种组织形式，由总统替代了总督。英国则因为很多次的贵族和资产阶级夺权，国王的权利被限制，议会的实力得到加强。评价：美国的权利和斗争来自民主，很大程度来自竞争，非阶级，每个阶级的作用和矛盾直接影响美国国家正常运作。他们的司法部门独立，全面。因此，不太容易受空间影响。这就是它能发展迅速的主要原因。至于英国，国会本身受到贵族的干涉，很难不涉及阶级利益，加之英国的宪法也包括君主立宪法，从根本上形成了金字塔般政治主体，民众发展，自由空间有限，加之二战的原因，发展自然没有美国迅速。【英文翻译】From the legislative, judicial, administrative point of view on the three, along with British lawyer dual-system to compare the similarities and differences between British and American political system:【the same:】 have a parliament, and parliament has【 a different power】: Britain is a constitutional monarchy, the United States is The Democratic RepublicBritain's head of state is King, there is no real power; President of the United States is the highest executive power and military power: a bourgeois revolution in Britain is the main contradiction with the bourgeoisie of the feudal ruling class contradictions, and the United States was the colonial ruler of the bourgeoisie with the contradictions .2 capitalism's development needs a stable external environment, the United Kingdom and the United States to use the monarchy as a result grew out of the colony, the founding of the initial chaos caused by wars and so they need a relatively centralized form of rule, Britain and the United States to adopt a constitutional monarchy with a republic president. 3 objective, the bourgeois revolution in Britain earlier, limited the power of the bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie is a constitutional monarchy on the feudal forces of compromise; the United States when the bourgeois revolution and capitalist development after a period of time, the force strength if the United States King also under is a constitutional monarchy, the United States is a republic, because the United States in the past does not have its own independent monarchy, the British monarch as their sovereign, independent after the monarch did United States is the presidential system, the Cabinet is the President of the Summit, the United Kingdom is a parliamentary system, is the prime minister heads the cabinet, the cabinet of the council. In the United States since before independence, by the British colonial presence of the Governor, but also on behalf of the Governor and the local people's councils, the colonial government by the Governor, at the time most European countries is still the king heads the cabinet, so naturally the United States after independence Continuation of this form of organization by the President of the replacement of the Governor. Britain is due to a number of times the power of the bourgeoisie and the nobility, the king's right to limit the strength of Parliament be strengthened.【Evaluation: 】The United States and the right to struggle from democracy, to a large extent, competition from non-class, each class conflict and the role of a direct impact on the normal operation of the United States. Their independence of the judiciary, all-round. As a result, less vulnerable to the effects of space. This is the main reason for the rapid development of it. As for Britain, by Congress itself Intervention aristocracy, it is difficult to not involve the interests of the class, plus the British monarchy but also the constitutional law, a fundamental form of the pyramid as the main political, and the development of the public, free of the limited space available, combined with the reasons for World War II, development of natural Did not prompt the United States.

Britain and the United States of America is the most main capitalist countries in the contemporary world, our politicalsystem have the same point, and have their own unique and distinct characteristics. There is more to showdistinction. Through a systematic and comprehensive comparative study of the two, in order to highlight thecharacteristics of their respective. Britain and the United States of America in the constitution, the electoral system,political system, parliamentary system and the government system, there are differences, mainly from the comparison of these United States of America is a federal country,organizational form of regime for the presidential system,the implementation of three powers, political system andpolitical party system of the two-party system combined with the balance. The UK is a unitary state, organizational form of regime for the cabinet system, political system and political party system of the two-party system of constitutional nature of the country the same. Britain and the United States of America is a capitalist country, the capitalclass is national ruling class, the state is the rule tool of bourgeois countries, resolutely safeguard the interests of the form of the same political party. Britain and the United States are the two-party system. In Britain, the Labour Party and the Conservative Party in parliamentary elections turns to wield state power; in the United States,the Republicans and the Democrats by running for president in exercising state power. Western countriesmainly has two forms, namely single system andcomposite is a single state. It has a single constitution, is the highest organ of state power and unified, national unifiednationality. The administrative units and autonomousunits are subject to the unified leadership of the central government, not from the central implementation ofindependent power, does not have the external sign offoreign countries. In foreign relations is a subject of international law. Britain is a typical have unwritten constitutional countries, Britain is the mother of bourgeoisconstitutional world. Its constitution system is multifarious,including constitutional law, case law and constitutional conventions. It is characterized by: the written and unwritten rules of law, through the combination of the people to get their rights, the Supreme Council, the separation of the three powers are not British constitution is the result of the long-termpolitical and historical development, it has no written forma unified, complete, but is composed of written laws and unwritten custom, United States Constitution is the first written constitution in the world. In the process of development,the United States Constitution formed four mainprinciples: the separation of powers and checks and balances, the federal system, government with limited power and judicial review. Although these principles are still the basis of the constitution, but through the formal amendments, judicial interpretation, legislation and practice of four kinds of main methods, the constitutionhas changed a lot. But it is the change that it the United States, the election is "rich man's game", for the election campaign costs are high, the process is relatively complex. This is closely related with the president of the United States for this form of political organization. Britain is a constitutional monarchy cabinet system state. The cabinet system refers to a form of organization of state power and administrative authority by the cabinet responsible to parliament. Features: the presidential system is generated from the Parliament andthe cabinet, responsible to parliament; the cabinet and the head of government is the core of the state power; a figure head in three right outside the United States there is no strict distinction between the ruling party and theopposition party, generally in the presidential election of the party as the ruling party, the losers of opposition oropposition. The composition of government does notdecide how much to the party seats in parliament, but depends on the president's choice. The change of government does not depend on the congressional elections, and depends on the presidential election. The two parties not guarded barriers, there were no significant differences in the social basis of both parties. In the United States Senate and house of Representatives, longterm is a very common phenomenon. Members shall serve other government posts. Britain and France in thepolitical system, administrative power is preferred, but the two countries adapt to their respective national conditions, take the structure and in different UK is the implementation of two yuan of administrative system. Two yuan administrative systemunder the parliamentary system is the result of long-term evolution of the monarchy. The original by the monarchpower gradually transferred to the hands of the government and the prime minister. The head of statewhile embodies the continuity in the country andgovernment agencies, but no power and no way toimplement their own policies, can play only a symbolic head of state role. In the United Kingdom, the king is the hereditary head of state, also is the head of government,commander in chief of the armed forces of a state andthe Church of England's secular leader. But the king asduty has no right to the virtual ruler, a symbol of nationalsecurity and safeguarding national unity, the constitution of three United States is the implementation of the centralizedadministrative system. President elected by universal suffrage, holds the important power of veto, set of heads of state and government, majority party spokesman andnational commander in chief of the armed forces in a body, has great to government system of England is thehighest administrative organ. The prime minister's cabinetsummit, in the actual executive position, as obtained by the majority in the house of Commons seats in the election the party or alliance leader, but the form or by aspecified. The cabinet is the core of government is the prime minister, the exercise of power tools. Britain belong to Western civilization system, our political system is an important part of civilization, influence on the construction of national political system in the world is. Similarities and differences between the two countries in political system,is conducive to further understanding of Western political civilization, continue to learn from Western models ofWestern political system, accelerate the building of China's modern political civilization.