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.
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...
If the parties in our governmental system would openly discuss about the difference in positions and in point of views within the groups in realizing these controversies will minimize the unnecessary troubles greatly. Another possibility of improvement would be following the great examples of other countries with the Westminster governance system. For example, in countries like Australia and New Zealand have already a well-established party discipline rules that are less strict than the ones in Canada and way more effective than the ones we have. In an article, it was said that” Australian parties are considerably more discipline than those in the UK an even those in Canada, although the degree of discipline in the latter has been the subject of much critical comment. Parliamentary votes in the UK are subject to varying degrees of party discipline, with the most rigid being the so-called” three-line whip’ votes. Neither Australia nor Canada has such gradations. In New Zealand party discipline has increased under its mixed Member proportional (MMP) electoral system and, unless party leaders have agreed to a conscience vote, standing orders require a party vote to be taken rather than individuals casting their votes in the chamber. “(Sawer, Abjorensen and Larkin
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.
Paun Akash, Robert Hazell, Andrew Turnball, Alan Beith, Paul Evans, and Michael Crick. "Hung Parliaments and the Challenges for Westminster and Whitehall: How to Make Minority and Multiparty Governance Work (with Commentaries by Turnbull, Beith, Evans and Crick)." in Political Quarterly Vol 81, Issue 2: 213-227.
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.
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
Discussions of which constitutional form of government best serves the growing number of democratic nation’s are being debated around the world. In the essay “The Perils of Presidentialism”, political scientist, Juan Linz compares the parliamentary with presidential systems as they govern democracies. As the title of Linz’s essay implies, he sees Presidentialism as potentially dangerous and sites fixed terms, the zero-sum game and legitimacy issues to support his theory. According to Linz, the parliamentary system is the superior form of democratic government because Prime Minister cannot appeal to the people without going through the Parliament creating a more cohesive form of government. By contrast, a President is elected directly by the
In the United States, president is in charge of the executive branch and he initiates the legistlation, but he is dependent on the the legislature to pass it into law. On the other hand, he can veto anything the legislature has passed into law. If we compare this system with a parliamentary s...
This exercises the idea of independence within ‘different functions of government’; it is represented by the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Separating the three prevents a dangerous occurrence where power is entirely centralized in one group.... ... middle of paper ... ... Carl F. Stychin and Linda Mulcahy, Legal Methods and Systems, (4th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2010).
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.
Furthermore, there may still be one voice that wants to be valued over others, which will revert to how democracy was in the beginning- in having one voice speaking for all. Also, if there were not to be one main government organisation this may bring about anomie, and citizens will not know who to follow and rules and regulations will not be obtained, therefore, it is hard to avoid any “involvement with politics” (Held, 2006, p.259), this would result in a ‘failed’ society. Therefore, we should not rush into curbing the power of the executive (even though some countries governments are corrupt), they are there to help us and maintain order of
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