Why don't we have a "Prime Minister's Question Time" in the US?

OK, the obvious answer is, "because we don't have a prime minister," but I speak, of course, about the equivalent for our own head of state.

Having lived in the UK for some time, I was always impressed with the nature and functions of Parliament, and one facet of this which I think every democracy should have is something akin to "Prime Ministers Question Time".

For those who don't know what this is, essentially, once a week the PM has to stand before Parliament and answer questions presented to him by any member of parliament. It gives the PM a chance to explain his policies, particularily controversial ones, it gives parliament a chance to question him directly and recieve answers immediately and on the record, rather than wait for press conferences, and, most importantly, it gives the people a chance to see their leader defend himself and decide for themselves on the issues depending on how well he can do so.

You can find archived footage of PMQ's in all formats at www.direct.gov.uk....

I'll admit I have a secret agenda here. I believe that leaders like Bush, who simply cannot think and speak "on their feet," would be rooted out quickly if we instituted this type of forum in the US. But it's not partisan- such a safeguard obviously applies to any President. Further, it makes sure that any policy or stands the head of state chooses to endorse or promote are very well thought out beforehand, by *himself*, and not his assistants.

It's a knife with which congress could cut through any media spin and get straight to the man himself. Something the people deserve.

I am tired of the executive hiding behind his press secretary and giving conferences only when he pleases. If it works in the UK, why can't we have it here? It raises the bar for leadership, and surely we deserve such a thing, if we want to claim we in the US live in the worlds greatest democracy?

-koji K.

[edit on 15-7-2004 by koji_K]

[edit on 15-7-2004 by koji_K]

[edit on 15-7-2004 by koji_K]

Here are some more links with information:

What Happens at PMQT?

Examples of questions presented to the PM (BBC)

-koji K.

Question Time exists in Australia too & is televised by the ABC. Very illuminating it is too, & I've learned from bitter experience only to hurl soft objects at the telly.

John the Weasel Howaed, being an astute politician, is always there, even although many questions from the floor are directed at other ministers.

Under the Westminster System, we have the same in Australia as well. I think it's great and appears to make leaders a little bit more accountable, given that they have to explain themselves publicy.
As I am currently living in Holland, I really miss the Aussie version of Parliament Question Time.
As for this happening in the US, I'm not quite sure how their system would allow it. Maybe someone here might know why they don't have this type of accountability in the US.

Originally posted by dolphinguy2004
As for this happening in the US, I'm not quite sure how their system would allow it. Maybe someone here might know why they don't have this type of accountability in the US.

Actually the ssytem is set up so that the president has to be asked before he can even go to talk before the House or Senate. Even the State of the Union Speech he gives once a year he is invited (It a formaility but the invatation has to be issued) One of the reasons is that the founding fathers wanted a true separation between the legislative and executive branches. This keep a president from comming in and putting direct pressure on the representatives.

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by dolphinguy2004
As for this happening in the US, I'm not quite sure how their system would allow it. Maybe someone here might know why they don't have this type of accountability in the US.

Actually the ssytem is set up so that the president has to be asked before he can even go to talk before the House or Senate. Even the State of the Union Speech he gives once a year he is invited (It a formaility but the invatation has to be issued) One of the reasons is that the founding fathers wanted a true separation between the legislative and executive branches. This keep a president from comming in and putting direct pressure on the representatives.

interesting- i did not know that the president had to be invited to do these things. in america though the senate has a lot more power than do members of parliament, compared to the head of state, so i dont see how the president could pressure the representatives- at least in a setting similar to PMQs. during PMQs, the prime minister is called forward to answer questions, so what's stopping the senate or the house from calling the president forward to answer questions?

-koji K.