Why the Executive is Able to Dominate Parliament in the British Political System
The executive has always been a fundamental body in the British
political system, the executive’s dominance is a result of party
politics and of reformation designed to undermine the bodies
responsible for scrutinising the Government.
Patronage has always been essential in maintaining the power of the
executive, especially the Prime minister. Discipline is promoted in
the governing body with the use of whips to enforce party policy and
encourage ministers to toe party line, the use of pagers has recently
been adopted by the Labour Party to ensure Labour MPs are sure of the
parties’ policies and developments that have occurred. As
appointments to the executive are controlled by the Premier party
loyalty is seen as imperative in order to “climb the political
ladder.” By encourage obedience regarding supporting party policy the
Governing party reduce backbencher desertion and show a unified front
towards both the public and opposition, which obviously strengthens
the executives grip on power.
Although party whips main job is to inform and ensure that all parties
in the House of Commons are satisfied with its business timetable,
their second role is of greater significance to their importance in
supporting the executive. The whips are designed to “keep any
straying dogs in line,” and use the threat of demotion or being
abandoned by the party. This is especially important as the whips
decide the membership of all committees and therefore a sycophantic
attitude often enables many MPs to gain another role within the
British political system.
T...
... middle of paper ...
...ersial terror bills, showing that a biased chamber can always
rebel on issues they feel strongly about, such as fundamental
humanitarian issues.
Finally the tradition of expectation that the Government should
dominate the system, as they have been elected to do so is although
trivial key to maintaining the power of the executive. This
expectation is simply because the party in power have been elected by
the electorate to do so, and therefore they are the party with the
authority to rule in the manner that the people elected them to rule.
In conclusion the manner in which the executive are scrutinized by a
number of issues, which all add together to permit a Government that
dominate he political system. This weakness in scrutiny has led to
Governments who are less accountable to both parliament and the
people.
There are two ways in which power can be separated; horizontally and vertically. The horizontal separation of powers is where power is divided between different institutions (the Supreme Court, the Senate and the White House). The vertical separation of powers is where power is divided between the central government and the national government. Political constitutions are incomplete contracts and therefore leave scope for abuse of power. In democracies, elections are the primary mechanism for disciplining public officials, but they are not sufficient.
Contrary to popular belief, a minority government does not necessarily hinder a governing party. When practiced correctly, a minority government can be an improvement on single-party majority. Instead of one party controlling government, minority governments allow for multi-party governance, which promotes compromise between political parties. On the whole, minority government decreases stability and requires continuous cooperation with opposition parties. Although faced with many challenges, there are several beneficial aspects to a minority government. This paper will argue that a minority government does not hinder a governing party, and in fact can be beneficial in numerous ways. Most importantly a minority government allows the Prime Minister to maintain a range of important resources which allow for an effective government, minority governments deliver a more open and inclusive decision making process, and a minority government guarantees the confidence of the House for a certain amount of time.
Parliamentary sovereignty, a core principle of the UK's constitution, essentially states that the Parliament is the ultimate legal authority, which possesses the power to create, modify or end any law. The judiciary cannot question its legislative competence, and a Parliament is not bound by former legislative provisions of earlier Parliaments. The ‘rule of law’ on the other hand, is a constitutional doctrine which primarily governs the operation of the legal system and the manner in which the powers of the state are exercised. However, since the Parliament is capable of making any law whatsoever, the concept of the rule of law poses a contradiction to the principle of parliamentary supremacy, entailing that Parliament is not bound by the Rule of Law, and it can exercise power arbitrarily.
Since the late 1700s, American government continuously found itself in gridlock with the executive and legislative branch in passing bills. The executive, which is commonly known as where ‘the highest office in the land’ is located, enforces the laws passed by congress. At times, the executive must come up with new and unique ways to combat congress hesitation and approve bills the branch wants. Some tools in the executive’s toolkit such as having some authority over agencies budget help to enforce other departments to work with the leaders of the executive branch. Although the division of powers among the branches limits the executive branch effectiveness in some forms, the executive branch is able to overcome their difficulties through innovative
Debating which constitutional form of government best serves democratic nations is discussed by political scientist Juan Linz in his essay “The Perils of Presidentialism”. Linz compares parliamentary systems with presidential systems as they govern democracies. As the title of Linz’s essay implies, he sees Presidentialism as potentially dangerous. Linz points out the flaws as presidentialism as he sees them and sites rigidity of fixed terms, the zero-sum game and political legitimacy coupled with lack of incentive to form alliances as issues to support his theory that the parliamentary system is superior to presidentialism.
In Mellon’s article, several aspects are mentioned supporting the belief that the prime minister is too powerful. One significant tool the prime minister possesses is “… the power to make a multitude of senior governmental and public service appointments both at home and abroad,” (Mellon 164). Mellon goes on to state the significance the prime minister has when allowed to appoint the government’s key member...
The power of the Executive branch has expanded over time to become the most authoritative division of government. In contrast to the Constitution 's fundamental designer, James Madison, who predicted the Legislative branch would dominate due to it’s power in making laws and regulating taxes/spending, the executive powers have proven to be superior and ever broadening. From the birth of the Republic, the President has sought to protect his rights and seek beyond his restriction of power. Setting the precedent as early as 1795, George Washington refused to relay documents relating to the Jay Treaty to the House of Representatives and saw his actions as a justified act of “executive prerogative.” Moreover, weaving throughout the Nineteenth century, presidents such as Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln conceived and added functions, such as the extensive use of the veto and the president’s direct and active role as Commander in Chief to their executive tool-belt. The Constitution communicates very little details regarding the President’s use of the power of veto and the role as Commander in Chief, but it was these presidents which established the major authority of the executive branch in these areas.
The United Kingdom as one of the remaining monarchies of the world, which head of it, the Queen Elizabeth II, has powers that provide an essential evolution of the country. These powers, are called Royal Prerogative powers. Obviously, British people respect the Royal family and additionally the queen, nevertheless they could have their own beliefs as seen on their references. According to the Royal Prerogative (“RP”), it is definitely the most historically and continuing tradition of Britain. In some situations, circumstances tend to disappear them and replaced them by other recent means. In this essay, it will define the RP and how can preserve the separation of powers. Therefore, it should explain how these powers dying to a democratic environment.
There are three very powerful and influential branches in the United States, the Legislative branch, the Executive branch, and the Judicial branch. Each branch is powerful for as the Legislative branch is to create laws, the Executive branch to enforces laws, the Judicial branch to interprets the laws. However out of the three, I believe that the Executive branch is the most powerful and influential one of all. For reasons as it has the Presidency, the president has the final say if he wants to pass a law or not. Also it propose many laws of there choice. The Executive branch has the green light to command the armed forces.
American politics is often defined by a continuing power conflict between the executive and the legislative branches of the government. This struggle for political power between the two stronger branches of the three is inherent in the Constitution, itself. The concepts of separation of powers and checks and balances ensure that the branches of government will remain in conflict and provide a balance that keeps the entire government under control. As it was first established, the executive branch was much smaller and weaker than as we know it today. Consequently, the legislative branch was unquestionably dominant. Over the course of history, the executive branch grew in both size and power to the point where it occasionally overtook the legislative and today rivals the legislative in a much closer political battle. Today both branches have major factors that contribute to their power, but on the whole the legislative remains the lastingly dominant branch.
Ministerial Accountability Under the UK Constitution “The prerogative has allowed powers to move from Monarch to Ministers without Parliament having a say in how they are exercised. This should no longer be acceptable to Parliament or the people.” Discuss whether ministerial accountability is adequately addressed under the UK constitution The Royal Prerogative has allowed a wide array of discretionary powers to be delegated from the Monarch to ministers without a need to seek parliamentary approval. This system is both unjust and undemocratic as it leaves a number of largely unchecked powers in the hands of a privileged few. These powers, including the ability to ratify treaties, declare war, regulate the civil service and appoint ministers, have a profound effect on the lives of the citizens of the United Kingdom and therefore it is necessary for them to be regulated by Parliament, the democratically elected body of the British people.
through fear of god and so now we can abolish them as this fear is no
It has been observed that most constitutional monarchies have a parliamentary system in which the monarch may have ceremonial duties or reserve powers according to the constitution. In the United Kingdom, the rights and duties of the head of state are established by conventions. These are non-statutory rules which are just as binding as formal constitutional rules. The monarch’s reserve powers include the power to grant pardons, bestow honours, appoint and dismiss a prime minister, refusal to dissolve parliament, and refusal or delay royal assent to legislation. Strict constitutional conventions govern the usage of reserve powers. If these powers are used in contravention of tradition, it will generally provoke a constitutional crisis.
Past forms of representative government have become extinct or severely troubled because of numerous weaknesses. The first problem of representative government that the cabinet system seeks to reconcile is the lack of cooperation between executive powers and legislative powers. This can happen when different parties control each branch of the government. This paralysis of government is seen as a danger to the cabinet system. Lack of cooperation can also occur because people of a country look to the executive as the leader, but he can often not have any power as a result of lack of cooperation from the legislative powers. Overall, there is a lingering inclination in representative government for the powers to become dissonant, thus rendering government unable to take any action. The cabinet system sees this gridlock as an entirely avoidable evil.
and the second is a free vote, this is when MPs are allowed to make up