PRIME MINISTER.   Term Paper ID:11198 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: History, evolution, functions, powers, selection, strengths & weaknesses of leader of British govt.... More...

10 Pages / 2250 Words 4 sources, 24 Citations, MLA Format $40.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: History, evolution, functions, powers, selection, strengths & weaknesses of leader of British govt. Paper Introduction: The purpose of this research is to examine the office of the Prime Minister of the British government. A historical background on the development of the office will be presented, together with an assessment of its strengths and weaknesses. In comparison with that of the heads of other modern states, the job of the Prime Minister of Great Britain is relatively vague. As chairman of the governing Cabinet of ministers, he has been called a primus inter pares (first among equals.) Nonetheless, as Winston Churchill said, "There can be no comparison between the positions of number one and numbers two, three and four" (Rose 54). This ambiguity stems from the fact that the office of prime minister evolved from pragmatic political practice over centuries, rather than from a constitutionally formulated theory. Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. This power to conferhonors and offices is not entirely in the Prime Minister's favor; however,Prime Ministers may defy their Cabinets or overrule their ministers only attheir peril. Ingeneral, the wider the field of such appointments, the wider the PrimeMinister's base of support in the House (Rose 55-6). And it was Walpole who set the example of quitting his office . In sum, then, it is possible to state that the strengths andweaknesses of the Prime Minister's position arise from his being the mostimportant but not the dominant figure in the British government. Because he is the leader of the majority, there is a goodchance that a Prime Minister's legislative program will be successful inthe Commons. Cambridge: Cambridge U P, 1963.----------------------- 11 And, in fact, in British history, such ad hoccoalitions have usually been as short-lived as they were rare (Macmillan222). Meetings of the cabinet thus became purely ministerial conferences, andwere moved from the palace to the home of the First Lord of the Treasury(Stewart 52). Independent of the party in power, the Civil Serviceimposes a continuity upon policy which can override any political mandateaccorded to a Prime Minister: . It varies according to the strength, style and aptitudes of the individual Prime Minister, and the ability, experience and determination of his colleagues (Smith 97). Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield, 1976.Stewart, Michael. Policy-Making in British Government. One of the causes of the purported distance of the Prime Ministerfrom quotidien politics is the fact that he is the leader of a partymembership which has little direct contact with its constituencies (Rose179). ministers enter office with a vain optimism about the ease with which their intentions can be translated into achieved policies. No votes are taken at these discussions; rather, matters are debated and aconsensus derived which is made to represent the will of the Cabinet.Thus, in the very course of Cabinet discussions, a Prime Minister's viewsmay change or be modified to accord with the collective view, for only inthis way may he retain the confidence of his Cabinet upon which hisauthority rests (Rose 61). In comparison with that of the heads of other modern states, the jobof the Prime Minister of Great Britain is relatively vague. In recent years, theCabinet has consisted of from 15 to 22 members, whose offices and dutiesare not fixed by law, but rather are suggested by practice and determinedby each Prime Minister. Indeed, the traditionally small size of the Prime Minister'spolitical staff has often been cited by those who have held the office asone of its principal liabilities. This loyalty isabsolutely essential to the Prime Minister's ability to remain in officefor, as we have said, unity or the appearance of it may make the differencebetween his retaining the confidence of the Commons or not. Many Prime Ministers have complained that their ministershave tended to become too absorbed in the affairs of their departments tothe detriment of the wider concerns of policy-making (Rose 62).Conversely, the Prime Minister's office has been criticised for being tooisolated and out of touch with the pedestrian business of governing thenation. This means ageneral election, with the attendant risk of individual members losingtheir seats. This is also the case because there are, effectively, nojudicial limits to his power, and because he controls not only the nationalpolitical organization, but local ones as well (Rose 61-2). Counterposedto the Prime Minister and his ministers, however, is the unelected CivilService, which bears much of the responsibility for the enactment of thegovernment's policy. Conversely, a Prime Minister who comes into office as theleader of a coalition of parties is in an especially vulnerable position.It was for this reason that Disraeli declared that "England does not likecoalitions" (Macmillan 22 ). . As constitutionalinfluences began to assert themselves after the Glorious Revolution of1688, however, the monarchs found it increasingly difficult to rule throughtheir ministers unless they were able to command the support of Parliament. The purpose of this research is to examine the office of the PrimeMinister of the British government. Any investigation of the powers and limitations of the office ofPrime Minister, then, must concentrate largely upon the relationshipbetween that office and the Cabinet. In practice, all ministers and the Prime Minister must be members ofParliament, specifically, of the House of Commons. . Politics in England. The Cabinet'sjob is to formulate policy and present it to the Parliament. Unable to oversee all the many facets ofpublic policy, the Prime Minister is usually restricted to taking theinitiative in foreign affairs and the budget. The ultimatethreat which the Prime Minister wields over an undisciplined orrecalcitrant party is that of a dissolution of Parliament. . Under the skillful leadership of Robert Walpole, the king's ChiefMinister from 1721 to 1742, the Cabinet was transformed from a consultativebody to the principal ruling organ of English government (White & Hussey94). For important and senior members, especially thosewho are, have been, or will be ministers, house seats become sinecures,"safe" districts in which they are elected term after term. The claimthat he represents the popular will can help him to command loyalty fromhis party, and cooperation from the Commons (Smith 94). As chairman ofthe governing Cabinet of ministers, he has been called a primus inter pares(first among equals.) Nonetheless, as Winston Churchill said, "There canbe no comparison between the positions of number one and numbers two, threeand four" (Rose 54). . W., and W. who first administered the government in accordance with his own views of our political re- quirements. It was under Walpole that the House of Commons became the dominant power in the state . Government in Great Britain, The Empire and the Commonwealth. More commonly, aPrime Minister can survive a ministerial resignation on the grounds that itrepresents, not a repudiation of his personal leadership, but a failure onthe part of the minister to convince the Cabinet as a whole of therightness of his position. .But it is a power to determine who will decide, not what they will decide (Smith 97-8). This ambiguity stems from the fact that the office ofprime minister evolved from pragmatic political practice over centuries,rather than from a constitutionally formulated theory. Tothis day, the Cabinet remains, more or less, the focus of those powers, andto the extent to which the Prime Minister assumes any of them personally,he does so only insofar as he is the director of the Cabinet and thecoordinator of its activities: "The Cabinet is the core of the Britishconstitutional system. That thistension has proved not only dynamic but fruitful is demonstrated by thedurability and flexibility of parliamentary government in England. Though the PrimeMinister has no veto power over Cabinet decisions as, for example, theAmerican President does, he can influence them through his control of theagenda and through his duty to summarize and formulate Cabinet discussions. for the avowed reason that he had ceased to possess the confidence of the House of Commons (White & Hussey 94-5). After the reign of George III and the tenureof Prime Minister Pitt the Younger (1783-18 1), no king could afford tochoose his ministers except from the majority party of the House of Commonsupon the suggestion of the Prime Minister. Hussey. It is the supreme directing authority" (Smith 92). The civil servants then call the minister's attention to "ongoing reality," that is, circumstances that civil servants regard as inhibiting or dooming realization of these intentions (Rose 228). Thedisparity between the leadership function of the Prime Minister and the day-to-day detail work of his ministers causes a gap between the head and limbsof government. Inthis sense, he acts as a mediator between the ministries, which actuallyexecute policy, and the Parliament, which must shape it. Formerly, theCabinet Council had met in the king's chambers--indeed this was the originof the word "cabinet,"--but as George spoke no English and took littleinterest in British politics, it was found inexpedient to consult with him. It therefore became necessary for sovereigns to choose their ministers,not according to their whim or preference, but from among the dominantparty of Parliament (White & Hussey 93). The power invested in the Cabinet confers upon the English governmentthe character of a collective rule. Indeed, to a large extent, the PrimeMinister's otherwise vaguely defined job is more or less what theindividual personality chooses to make it: So far as power is in part a function of personality, Prime Ministerial power is not a constant factor. The closesta Prime Minister ever comes to autonomy, therefore, is when he commands aparticularly large and cohesive majority following an overwhelming victoryat the polls. . Indeed, because he is the leaderof the majority, and his position depends on his ability to retain thatmajority's support, the Prime Minister is never for a moment free of orabove partisan politics, even in times of national emergency. Walpole set a number of precedents which were to shape the future ofthe role of prime minister, most important among them that of resigning hispost when it had become clear that he lacked the continued support of themajority of his government: It was Walpole . . The Past Masters, Politics and Politicians, 19 6-1939. New York: Harper & Rowe, 1975.Rose, Richard. Nonetheless, the Prime Ministerwas not the inheritor of the sovereign's proscribed powers, which wereinvested instead in the Cabinet, of which he was merely the chairman. . . D. Eventually, he was generally referred to as the primeminister. This tension and these ambivalences are the result of atradition of pragmatic politics which evolved organically, and whichrepresented the desire to shift power from the monarch without reinvestingit in any one person. Thisneed to retain office, dependent upon the ability to satisfy the majority,can be a debilitating shortcoming of the Prime Ministerial system since,for the sake of his position, he may be required to abandon or alter hispolitical programs under pressure of groups inside or outside thegovernment: "At times the price of a Prime Minister's remaining in officeis giving way to Cabinet colleagues, reinforced by extra-Cabinet pressureson a majority policy matter" (Rose 289). Yet under the British electoral system,candidates for House seats are not required to live in the constituenciesfor which they stand. As the host, the First Lord became, de facto, the meeting'schairman, and by 1718, his home had become the fixed venue for cabinetdiscussions. Exceptions to this rulehave become increasingly rare. The accession of theHanoverian George I to the throne in 1714 marked a turning point in thedevelopment of ministerial government (White & Hussey 93-4). Works CitedMacmillan, Harold. A historical background on thedevelopment of the office will be presented, together with an assessment ofits strengths and weaknesses. London: Allen & Unwin, 1965.White, L. In this task,unity is essential, and members are expected to support a policy decisionor resign (Smith 92-3). This necessity to submit his program to the agents of the civilservice is one of the severest limitations on the legislative power of thePrime Minister. Though this approval is still required by tradition, it haslargely, though not entirely, become ceremonial. The result is that members of Parliament often havelittle first-hand knowledge of the people and problems of the districtswhich they represent. Rather than take such a risk, even disaffected MPs can beexpected to follow the party line, and the maneuver has rarely had to beemployed. It was Walpole who first conducted the business of the country in the House of Commons . . The British Approach to Politics. This patronage prerogative is a vestige of the ancient powerof the monarch, and is one of the Prime Minister's most potent means ofdetermining the shape of policy: The most convincing evidence of Prime Ministerial domination concerns his ability to manipulate offices and decide on the deployment of the available political talent . Short of that, the personal style of the Prime Minister, the wayin which he manipulates his powers and prerogatives, usually determines thecharacter of his government. Boston: Little, Brown, 198 .Smith, Brian. By the early eighteenth century, the leading ministers had combinedto form the Cabinet Council, which eventually replaced the unwieldy andunrepresentative Privy Council of the king. . In recent English governments, fully one-third of all members of themajority party have been the recipients of official patronage of this sort,becoming Cabinet members, ministers of departments or secretaries. To obtain suchsafe constituencies is a prime ambition of many politicians, and a partyleader derives much authority from his ability to allocate them. The Prime Minister is the political leader of his party in the Houseof Commons, chosen by its membership through a process of elimination. Thus a balance was struck between a Cabinet ofministers and a single leader in whom, together, the sovereignty wrestedwith such difficulty from the royal family, might reside. The Cabinet's authority isconstitutionally derived, that of the Prime Minister is not. It is a power relevant to the scope and content of governmental offices and to the security of their incumbents . The Cabinet is composed, for the most part, ofmembers of Parliament selected by the party leadership and approved by themonarch. Such actions give the impression of a weak or dividedgovernment, and may result in a loss of confidence in the leadership.Indeed, a Cabinet consistently thwarted and disregarded can force a PrimeMinister from office, though this is rare (Smith 95-6). . Those ministries and departments which execute policy arepeopled with career public servants who owe little or nothing to electedofficials, and they represent an organizational bureaucracy which theoffice of the Prime Minister cannot hope to duplicate or overrule (Smith98). Ifthe party holds a majority, its leader is invited by the monarch to form agovernment, which he does by recommending to the monarch a list ofministers. Thus, while the policy-making power of thegovernment resides in the Cabinet, the Prime Minister, as party leader, canexert an important influence of policy insofar as it is he who appoints itsmembership. . Theleader of the majority, he must depend upon its support for his tenure; thechairman of the Cabinet, he must bow to its collective will; the electedexecutive of the nation, he must govern through ministers who can compelhim to alter his programs and through civil servants over whom he has noeffective control. . . . . The Prime Minister stands at the apexof this rule with his principal duty being to reconcile it with theindividual responsibility of the ministers to Parliament (Smith 98). Cabinet ministers thusbecome self-promoting, and are as often chosen on the basis of loyalty tothe Prime Minister as for competence (Rose 18 ). The evolution of the office of Prime Minister was thusorganizationally bound up with the rise of the Commons as the preeminentbody in English government. All the other multitudinousdetails of governance are left to the various departments and their heads,while the Prime Minister provides general leadership and coordination. Prime Ministers who have attained office through general electionshave an advantage over those who succeed a retiring government. There is,therefore, much jockeying for position within the party, and particularlyamong candidates for positions within the Cabinet. In feudal England, governmental ministers were either the personalservants or the hand-chosen advisers of the sovereign. The common denominator, however, is that regardless of how he choosesto conduct his government, the Prime Minister must retain the allegianceand command the support of his party in order to remain in office. . If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.