In the last few days a healthy and robust legislature engaged in one of the most vital aspects of a republican system. The alleged uses of chemical weapons in Syria has sparked national and international debate over what constitutes a proper response from the West. In response to these tragic happenings, a large national house convened to discuss this matter with their executive. Spirited republicanism was on full display as this eight-hour discussion reached heated points of contention. The citizens of this country could rest assured that their statesmen would not embark upon military action without careful dialogue.

Which republic was this? Unfortunately, not the republic that we think of as the global hegemonic power. The republic I speak of is Great Britain. One can certainly find fault with our mother country’s governmental system, but one aspect which can, on occasion prove helpful is that of its intertwining of the executive and legislative. David Cameron had to go to the floor of the Commons to convince his countrymen of the rightness of his prospective military operation.

Whether you support or disagree with the idea of Western involvement in Syria, it’s certainly health for a republic when an executive needs to convince the people’s representatives to vote for war. By contrast, American commander-in-chief  has become increasingly more powerful through successive administrations dating from Lincoln.

The justification that extreme exigencies can sometimes require swift action by an executive without legislative consultation is clearly valid, but its abuse is also particularly deleterious to the proper conduct of a calm and reflective republic.

It’s encouraging to see that President Obama did what Cameron did first, is putting the onus back on Congress, where it belongs. Let’s hope it stays that way.