Parliament, Politics and Policymaking in the United Kingdom - Essay Example

?PARLIAMENT, POLITICS AND POLICYMAKING Ideally or in theory, the Westminster Parliament is supposed to be a major force in policymaking in the UnitedKingdom. The fact is that it is the highest legislative authority wherein laws are made and that most of the important personages that are involved in British policymaking are members therein. No less than the British constitution mandates that all government ministers, including the most powerful of these - the Prime Minister - are accountable to the legislature. And so it is often assumed, especially by the non-British, that the Westminster or the British Parliament plays the most important part in policymaking within the UK. This is not, however, the case. The argument is that Westminster wields relatively weak influence in matters of policy for several reasons. The most prominent of these are: 1) the two parties of the British political system exercise more control; 2) the executive branch of the government is the sole decision-making agency; and, 3) the existence of the policy communities. This paper will investigate this issue and determine the role of Westminster and its extent in British policymaking in actuality. Background In order to understand the role of the British Parliament in the state's policies, it is important to explain its nature, its function and how it works. Westminster is divided into two chambers - the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The former is consisted of elected legislators while the latter is composed of the British peerage. Until the twentieth century, both of these chambers were crucial in the legislative process. The House of Commons - akin to many Democratic or Republican states' lower or congressional chamber - passes bills that are submitted to the House of Lords for approval. Reforms, however, clipped the power of the upper chamber and that it was reduced as a subordinate in the legislative process. Under the Parliament Act of 1911 and 1949, the House of Lords can no longer reject a bill passed by the House of Commons. Once they vote against a measure, for instance, what they would achieve was merely the delay of the passage of the bill into law because the lower chamber can push the bill through with the House of Lords' permission. The House of Commons, hence, on the surface, becomes the dominant player in policymaking in Britain today. And so, essentially, the most important variable that would ideally demonstrate the role of Westminster in policymaking is with regards to legislation. Bills can only be passed by the Parliament. For a detached observer, one that is exclusively familiar with the workings of the United States government, for example, would say that the power dynamics behind Westminster's governmental role is the same as that of the American Congress wherein policymaking is the responsibility of congressional members, committees and subcommittees. This is in addition to the fact that the body is empowered to control the government budget. They have the so-called power of the purse, a variable that, in itself could, ideally, influence and shape policies. It is, hence, surprising for outsiders to find that in actuality, Westminster's role in policymaking is considered insignificant or not as potent as that of the American legislature. For some sectors, this may also prove confusing because it is inconsistent to the very ideals and the obvious mandate that the two chambers of the British Parliament stand for. Since Westminster is the highest authority in legislation and the laws that are promulgated out of it form part of the policies of the UK, how did it end up portraying a minor role in the policy network? The answer to this question lies in the complexities of the British political system, the very reason behind the fact that the legislative process is not all there is to making laws and decision-making. On Policymaking As has been raised earlier, Westminster has the power to legislate. But this does not necessarily translate into a particular capability to shape, much less influence policy in the context of the body collectively. Legislation is characterized by elaborate and strict legal rules but that these are insignificant from the point of view of policy. The reason, wrote Wade, is that membership of standing committees provide backbenchers such as pressure groups with formal opportunities to influence the details of the legislation.1 But measures introduced by these legislators will be met with resistance once the government refrain from supporting its passage. It does not take so much mental exertion to conclude that party positions dominate these same procedures no matter how legislators debate or employ parliamentary tools in order to achieve specific objectives or independent attempts at policy-making. This is excellently demonstrated in the way war can be declared. The Prime Minister has the power to declare war but he does this in behalf of the British monarch. During the 1982 Falklands War, the Labour Party found it difficult to voice opposition and influence war policy because the only way they could act on their position in Westminster was through the unsatisfactory procedural device of a vote on an adjournment motion, rather than a vote on a substantive motion.2 This is also the case with regards to UK's policy towards the European Union. Poguntke explained that the Parliament is dominated by the executive branch wherein parliamentary parties are almost entirely subservient to the needs of the elites occupying the executive offices of the state.3 This is reflected in the way the Cabinet Office handles UK's Permanent Representation to the EU and how the Cabinet Offices European secretariat is headed by the prime minister's personal advisor on EU matters.4 Here, the British legislature plays no important part, "despite the fact that on paper, Britain has the second most effective system for parliamentary scrutiny of EU legislation after Denmark" 5 Comparing it with its German counterpart can also depict the influence and power of Westminster. The German political system favored the parlamentarische Regierung, which is dominated by coalition politics, making the Parliament more powerful than the Cabinet in the area of policy and decision-making. 6 Whitehall’s Dominance Kesselman et al., pointed out that Westminster has no direct participation in policymaking because, as previously mentioned, this role is primarily claimed by Whitehall and that even though he or she is a member of the British parliament, he is strongly influenced not by his peers but by his party and the policy communities - the informal networks with extensive knowledge, access, and personal connections to those responsible for policy: "in this private hothouse environment, civil servants, ministers, and members of the policy communities work through informal ties'" and "a cooperative style develops as the ministry becomes an advocate for key players in its policy community."7 This is widely acknowledged by many observers, particularly the widely pandered notion that these pressure groups constitute some form of group representation. In this regard, Wade pointed out that the high degree of involvement of policy pressure groups makes it imperative for the government to subject them into some state control or under some constitutional principles or regulation.8 The sheer power vested on the Prime Minister in regard to decision-making empowered recent holders of the office to enhance their position and strengthen policy coordination, with their office at the center, holding power. For example, prime ministers since Margaret Thatcher have served in several Cabinet posts and created new agencies that enabled them to achieve their respective goals and objectives. According to Shapiro, the Cabinet is increasingly becoming a tool for the Prime Minister to monopoly policy-making and decision-making: "the Cabinet Office staff increased by 56 percent between 1990 and 2001… Meanwhile, the Treasury has developed a stronger policy coordination role… Finally, in an attempt to overcome departmentalism, the Blair government has promoted "joined up government, an effort to articulate policy goals that span ministries within the British executive."9 These moves were achieved in the guise of administrative reforms. The result of which reinforces the collective and institutionalized factors that diminish the power of those outside the executive sphere in policy-making. What the above developments represent is the sheer strength and dominance of the executive department that it eclipses Westminster in prominence. To say that the legislature does not come close to the influence wielded by the Prime Minister is an understatement. Whatever leverage the body has in its sleeve is undermined by the potency of the party-system in Britain that it is finally reduced to a mere rubber stamp for policies made by the Prime Minister. Party Control In the case of a solid government majority and/or a strong executive department, the Parliament usually does little more than confirm most government decisions. 10 It is important to note, with this point, that the Prime Minister is not only a cabinet chairman but that he is also the party leader. And so the party's ideology as well as the leader's personal policy preferences are often dutifully followed by his party mates in Westminster. As with party dynamics elsewhere, party members understand that party policies and positions can only be achieved through the cohesion of their stands. In addition, the two-party system in Britain is known for its strict party discipline. This is further aggravated by a kind of docility on the part of legislators and Westminster as a whole, that in Mullard's opinion, may be partly caused by the deferential political culture which, following the doctrine of Edmund Burke, is content to leave the great issues of state to those believed to know best.11 The leader occupying Whitehall is the leader of the party. His party will have no reason to oppose him in Westminster. Some semblance of weakness on the part of the executive branch happen when the prime minister is elected from a minority or that he is a by-product of a coalition government. In this case, the environment might resemble the German system a little wherein the parliament can assert itself. Other Factors There are several other minor variables that contribute to the dilution of whatever active role that the Westminster has in policymaking. Among these is the devolution of the legislative power that has taken place in past decades. A series of Acts by the Parliament are themselves crucial in this development. What this means, according to Panara, is that "a great many issues over the day-to-day exercise of governmental power and the interface between the Westminster Parliament and the devolved administrations is left to less formal arrangements."12 While most policies dispensed with in setup are not legally binding, the circumstance itself represent a trend of diffusion of power with regards to policymaking. Here, it must be underscored that the British constitution is of the unwritten type, hence, informal arrangements and agreements made by the lower authorities are vital in the constitution itself. By ensuring a certain degree of autonomy for local governments and legislatures, Westminster is eroding its power base and ability to influence decision-making. Then there is also the media, interest groups and the public opinion that result in the interplay of all the actors involved. Politicians that constitute the Parliament are in constant lookout for popularity polls that are perpetually hugging the media headlines. The unitary system and the dominance of the two parties in Britain nudge politicians closer towards the survival of their party in the next elections, knowing that their own prospects are closely tied with it. Conclusion Policymaking in the UK is controlled by the government - the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, Westminster, the bureaucrats. Each of these has its own contribution to what collectively become as the overall state policy. However, the UK has a strong unitary political system that allows for a single governmental branch to lead and dominate in drafting and implementation of policy decisions. This is the reason why the degree of influence of Westminster in the area of policymaking is subordinated to that of Whitehall's – the main branch empowered to create and implement British policy. Furthermore, unlike the US, Britain has no clear separation of powers of the branches of the government. The legislative is not independent from the executive or vice versa. The persistence and power of party politics demonstrates this point best. And so, all in all, Westminster, though sovereign, does not function to govern the UK. That is why it does not make policy. To borrow the words of Williams, Westminster is able to reject and amend legislation but it cannot propose its own alternatives and once a legislator or a backbencher put forward an independent bill, it will certainly fail once the government does not cooperate.13 Its most significant contribution is to merely influence policy within its meager capacities in specific stages of legislative process. Bibliography Collins, S 2002, German policy-making and eastern enlargement of the EU during the Kohl era. Manchester University Press, Manchester. Kesselman, M, Krieger, J, Allen, C and Hellman, S 2008, European Politics in Transition. Cengage Learning, New York. McCormick, J 2009, Comparative Politics in Transition. Cengage Learning, New York. Mullard, M 1995, Policy-making in Britain: an introduction. Routledge, London. Panara, C 2010, The Role of the Regions in the European Governance. Springer, Berlin. Pfiffner, J and Phythian, M 2008, Intelligence and national security policymaking on Iraq: British and American perspectives. Texas A&M University Press, Austin. Poguntke, T 2007, The Europeanization of national political parties: power and organizational adaptation. Taylor & Francis, New York. Shapiro, M 2004, Transatlantic policymaking in an age of austerity: diversity and drift. Georgetown University Press, Georgetown. Wade, W, Forsyth, C and Hare, I 1998, The golden metwand and the crooked cord. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Williams, A 1998, UK government & politics. Heinemann, Amsterdam. Read More