NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
As with much of Britains unwritten constitution, the role of Prime Minister emerged by chance, owing more to the apathy of King George I (who couldnt be bothered attending cabinet meetings) than any kind of grand plan. He appointed a sycophantic Member of Parliament to attend cabinet meetings on his behalf. His name was Robert Walpole. Nearly 300 years later many traditions still remain. The monarchy is still the head of state de jure with Royal prerogatives necessary to rubber stamp any parliamentary legislation (the Royal Assent). The Royal prerogative also extends to foreign policy, including the ability to declare war or peace.
However not since Queen Victoria has the monarchy exercised any power de facto. Nowadays the Royal Family is regarded as a constitutional monarchy. Although the Queen may be said to reign, she does not rule. Parliament is where the real power lies. Traditionally the Prime Minister was regarded as primus inter pares but the real politic is very different. The German / Italian sociologist Roberto Michels enunciated his well known iron law of oligarchy, postulating that within any mass party ineluctable sociological and psychological processes would result in domination by a small elite (Kingdom 1997).
Indeed the Prime Minister is a very powerful figure. He appoints individuals to government and cabinet positions and can also fire them. The slippery pole of parliamentary progress relies upon loyalty to the party line, following the orders of the party whips, whom in turn follow the orders of the Prime Minister. A back bencher could be rewarded for loyalty with a junior ministerial post. Or a junior minister could be punished with demotion for rebelling against the party line. A Prime Minister may appoint political foes into the cabinet.
By having individuals whom would oppose government policy from the back benches in the cabinet the Prime Minister reduces their ability to dissent. By being in the executive a large workload is bestowed upon them. It also forces them to adhere to the cabinets collective responsibility ethic. If dissenting back bencher's are convinced that their political allies are having an input into the policy making process they will be more inclined to follow the party line. The partnership of Tony Blair and John Prescott exemplifies this philosophy. Regarded as a dream ticket partnership theoretically representing both the old socialist wing and modernising wing of the party.
Indeed should there be no room in the cabinet for new appointments the Prime Minister can even create new cabinet positions or merge already existing cabinet departments. John Major created the roll of deputy Prime Minister for Michael Heseltine. Indeed by the powers vested in him, had he also wished to create a ministry of funny walks then technically he may have done so. The Prime minister also chairs all cabinet meetings and sets the agenda and can declare a general election or leadership contest any time he wants.
With such powers in abundance the Prime Minister cannot truly be regarded as primus inter pares in the House of Commons and as such can be regarded as the functioning head of state de facto. There are two schools of thought as to the proper role of the Prime Minister. The First doctrine is that of chairmanship. John Major prided himself as being leader of a cabinet government advocating collective responsibility for all of the important decisions. The right wing tabloids regarded this as weak leadership and insidiously claimed that the iron lady had been replaced with a man of straw. Cynics would site this philosophy as merely part of the real politic of his slim parliamentary majority.
This meant that Major was vulnerable to any back bench discord. Conflict between the one nation conservatives and the right wing Euro-sceptics (whom Major later subjectively referred to as Euro-Bastards) meant that Major had to walk a political tightrope, undermining his personal authority to the extent that he felt that he needed to throw down the gauntlet and declare a leadership contest. In keeping with the chairmanship model the Conservative Party truly was a broad church with competing groups and interests of which Major had the arduous task of satisfying. His senior colleagues such as Portillo, Heseltine, Howard and Riffkind were autonomously powerful in their own right and in many respects held nearly as much authority as the Prime Minister himself. The second doctrine is that the Prime Minister should take a presidential role. Thatchers leadership was regarded as presidential.
Unlike Major who functioned as a consensus politician, she was a conviction politician. Ironically, when asked about which previous Prime Minister she admired the most, Thatcher chose Robert Walpole, the Prime Minister who represented the King back in the 1720 s. Thatcher, like the monarchy of old, had a domineering style. She surrounded herself with like minded advisors to assist in policy formation and left little autonomy to individual cabinet departments.
In reality the role of Prime Minister is neither one of the two doctrines and falls somewhere in between. Unlike a president the Prime Minister is not directly elected by the people. He or she emerges from parliament as the leader of the largest party. The general public do not get a say in the election of party leaders.
When John Major initially became Prime Minister he was elected by the Parliamentary Conservative Party and had no public mandate. Should the leader of the majority party lose his or her constituency seat or his or her role as party leader then he or she would be unable to hold office. While a president may appoint his or her cabinet as he or she chooses the British Prime Ministers potential cabinet is restricted to Parliament. Also the bureaucracy (Lords, Whitehall) is mainly permanent as opposed to being politically appointed.
Effective Prime Ministerial government varies profoundly from Presidential government as Margaret Thatcher found out. Her own personal doctrine, Thatchers was not universally popular. She was regarded in many respects as a radical. Quite the opposite of many of the parties old school pragmatists. Her single minded approach typified with the immortal words, The lady is not for turning. Indeed in many respects Thatcher was the executive.
She enjoyed great prominence through the media and public adulation. However, such a leadership style is not best suited to Britains parliamentary system. High profile resignations like Chancellor Nigel Lawson reflected a growing rebellion within the Parliamentary Party which eventually lead to Thatchers resignation. Thatcher had failed to satisfy the interests of the various groups within her own Party. She was not the first to make such a misjudgment. When Eden ordered the invasion of the Suez canal in 1956 he did so without the consensus of his party and was later overthrown following the debacle.
It is clear that the extent to which modern Britain is governed by a system of Prime Ministerial government depends on a number of factors. The Prime Ministers parliamentary majority is crucial. It determines the power which the parties various groups can command influence relative to the Prime Minister. In Majors government any marginal back bench rebellion could force policies to be amended. Tony Blair with his massive majority does not have to satisfy the various wings of his party to the same extent and thus wields more power. The second factor is party unity.
A party with an extremely broad church, like New Labour has many groups to satisfy and thus the ability of the Prime Minister to take tough decisions and steer the proverbial ship of state is lessened as not all of his party will steer in the same direction. The ship may also be blown off course by events beyond the Prime Ministers control such as global economic recessions or even boosted such as when Thatcher claimed victory in the Falklands. The final factor is the Prime Ministers personality. A stubborn Prime Minister with deep convictions and an authoritarian personality will command more influence than a duplicitous Prime Minister who aims to please everyone and surfs a wave of public opinion, a charge often levelled at current Prime Minister Anthony Charles Lynton Blair in the past.
Free research essays on topics related to: tony blair, head of state, prime minister, cabinet meetings, collective responsibility
Research essay sample on Head Of State Prime Minister
