Untitled Essay, Research Paper

There are a lot of political issues in Great Britain today. United Kingdom

is a large, industrialized democratic society and as such it has to have

politics and therefore political issues. One of those issues how should executive

branch work and whether the Prime Minister has too much power. Right now

in Great Britain there is a great debate on this issue and I am going to

examine it in detail. The facts I have used here are from different writings

on British politics which are all listed in my bibliography, but the opinions

are my own and so are the arguments that I used to support my views.

First let me explain the process through which a person becomes a Prime Minister.

The PM is selected by the sovereign. He (or she) chooses a man who can command

the support of majority of the members of the House of Commons. Such a man

is normally the leader of the largest party in the House. Where two are rivals

in a three party contest such as those which occurred in the 1920s he is

usually selected from the party which wins the greatest number of seats.

The Prime Minister is assumed to be the choice of his party and nowadays,

so far as he can be ascertained, participation of a monarch is a pure formality.

Anyone suggested for this highest political office obviously has to be a

very smart and willing individual, in fact it has been suggested that he

be an “uncommon man of common opinions”(Douglas V. Verney). Not all Prime

Ministers fitted this bill exactly, but every on of them had to pass one

important test: day-to-day scrutiny of their motives and behavior by fellow

members of Parliament before they were ultimately elected to the leadership

of their party. Unlike Presidents of the United States all Prime Ministers

have served a long apprenticeship in the legislature and have been ministers

in previous Cabinets. Many Presidents of our country have been elected and

on many occasions they have never even met some of their future co-workers,

such as case of Kissinger and Nixon who have never even met prior to

Nixon’s appointment.

Let’s now examine the statutory duties and responsibilities of the Prime

Minister. Unlike the United States where the President’s duties are

specifically written out in the Constitution, the powers of the Prime Minister

are almost nowhere spelled out in a statute. Unlike his fellow ministers

he does not receive the seals of office: he merely kisses the hands of the

monarch like an ambassador.

The Prime Minister has four areas of responsibilities. He is a head of the

Government; he speaks for the Government in the House of Commons; he is the

link between the Government and the sovereign; he is the leader of the nation.

He is chief executive, chief legislator and chief ambassador. As we can see

the PM has an wide range of powers, maybe too wide. As head of the Government

the Prime Minister has the power to recommend the appointment and dismissal

of all other ministers. Far from being merely first among equals, he is the

dominant figure. Ministers wait in the hall of PMs office on No.10 Dowling

Street before being called into the Cabinet room. He may himself hold other

portfolios such as that of Foreign Secretary(as did Lord Salisbury) or Minister

of Defense(as did

Mr. Churchill). He has general supervision over all departments and appoints

both the Permanent Secretary and the Parliamentary Secretary. The Cabinet

office keeps a record of Cabinet decisions to make sure that PM has up to

date information. He controls the agenda which the office prepares for Cabinet

meetings. There is a smaller Prime Minister’s Private Office which consists

of a principal private secretary and a half a dozen other staff drawn from

civil service. Perhaps owing to American influence the two offices are becoming

increasingly popular and there are signs that the Prime Minister is no longer

content to be aided by nonpolitical civil servants. There is little doubt

that if he chooses the PM can be in complete command of his Cabinet.

The PM must also give leadership in the House of Commons, though he usually

appoints a colleague as Leader of the House. He speaks for the Government

on important matters-increasingly, questions are directed to him personally-and

controls the business of the House through the Future Legislation Committee

of the Cabinet which he appoints mainly from the senior nondepartamental

ministers. Since the success of his legislative program depends mainly on

support of his party he must as a party leader attend to his duties and ensure

that the machinery of his party is working properly and in the hands of men

he could trust. Basically the PM controls his party and in essence he controls

the Parliament, but that is not all. The PM alone can request the sovereign

to dissolve the Parliament and call a new election, it is open to debate

whether it is this power

to allow him the control of the party and the Parliament. I agree with this

argument completely because if the PM doesn’t like the way it is going

with his party he can always announce new election so the Parliament pretty

much backs up whatever the PM proposes. This is my main argument for this

paper. In United Kingdom there is no system of checks and balances like there

is in United States. In UK the PM and the Cabinet make a decision which is

then almost blindly supported by the Parliament. A real democracy cannot

function this way where there is one person of power and the rest can hardly

do anything about it. Members of the majority party will not go against the

will of PM because it means going against the will of their own party and

that is unheard of in England, members of the opposing party cannot do anything

because they are a minority. The Queen herself is a figure-head and does

not have any real power. The PM is a link between the monarch and the Government,

he keeps the Queen aware of what goes on with the Cabinet, the Government

and the world at large. Although the Queen is a fictional figure and has

no real power she can damage the reputation of the Government and the entire

country by one careless word. It is the Prime Minister’s responsibilities

to keep the monarch well informed. Other ministers however can only see the

monarch with the PMs permission (the monarch however can see whomever she

chooses). As we can see, here is another illustration of PM

having too much power. He basically has an exclusive relationship with the

monarch and controls who can see the Queen and who cannot. In US this is

unthinkable, any congressman can request an audience with the President if

he wants and if let’s say the Chief of Staff wanted to limit that in

any way then he would run into some serious problems.

Finally the PM is the leader of the nation. In time of crisis the people

expect him to make an announcement and to appear on television. Increasingly

he should be a man who can not only secure the confidence of House of Commons,

but of the man in the street or rather the man in the armchair in front of

the television. Elections are ostensibly fought between two individual

parliamentary candidates, but in practice they are contests between national

parties which offer their own political and economical programs. The parties

convey an “image” to the nation through the voice and appearance of their

leaders. The Prime Minister must outshine his rival, the Leader of the

Opposition. In the 1964 election, when the Liberals doubled their vote, much

importance was attached to the TV performance of the Liberal leader, Jo Grismond.

The Head of State and traditional “symbol of the Nation” may be the Queen

and the Royals, but the chief executive is in reality the PM. It is to his

desk that ultimately all difficult problems come whether these involve

participation in NATO, the balance of payment crisis, the budget-or even

the royals’ love affairs(as in 1936 and again in the 80’s and

90’s). It is the PM that has to symbolize his country’s policies

abroad and it is he who must personally convince political leaders in other

countries that his Government can be relied upon.

The Prime Minister is also chief legislator. Through the Future Legislation

Committee, he determines which bills the House of Commons will discuss during

the session, and can attach whatever importance he chooses to the Immigration

Bill or Steel Nationalization Bill. With few exceptions bills are introduced

in the House by the Government and if they are important they require the

backing of the Premier.

Also he is the chief administrator. Not only does he supervise the departments

and chair Cabinet meetings but he directs the Cabinet Office and the Office

of Prime Minister. In economic affairs he decides governmental strategy in

conjunction with his Chancellor of the Exchequer and Minister of Economic

Affairs, if there is one, and leaves these ministers to implement his policies.

In defense policy he chairs the Defense Committee of the Cabinet, leaving

the details to the Secretary of Defense(Army, Navy and Air Force) and the

Chiefs of Staff. Foreign Affairs, normally the responsibility of the Foreign

Secretary, require the intervention of the PM when really important decisions

have to be made.

As we can see the PM is potentially a very powerful figure. Everything depends

on how he chooses to use this power and the success with which he delegates

some of his responsibilities.

All PMs have had an inner circle of ministers to which he turns when quick

decisions have to be taken. The more important departmental ministers tend

to be the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the

Exchequer; but these may not compose the inner circle of the given PM. Senior

ministers don’t have to be the members of the inner circle. They usually

are, but not all the time. The Cabinet is usually as follows: the PM, three

to six inner circle members and the remainder of the Cabinet which number

about fifteen. I think it is obvious to see why the PM needs an inner circle.

In United States for example the President can approve the appointment of

a person to a high political position without having ever met him/her. In

Britain this would sound ridiculous, all major political figures know each

other for years having probably gone to same schools together. The Brits

believe that good friends make good decision makers which to me sounds very

reasonable. This fact can be viewed from two different perspectives: some

people say that when a new PM is elected he usually appoints all his friends

to high positions by doing this he creates an inner clique with which he

governs as an absolute ruler, the opposing view says that you need to know

your colleagues for years in order to successfully work with them. Both views

have a point and this is a very hot topic in British politics right now.

Personally I thin

318