Powers of the Prime Minister and Other Political Issues in the United Kingdom - Essay Example

? Prime minister of the United Kingdom The office of the prime minister in the United Kingdom is not per the constitution but conventional. It is the role of the Queen to appoint the best person (prime minister) to maintain the business of the House of Commons. He must belong to the party or rather coalitions with the highest number of legislators. It is worth noting that the position was not created as per the constitution, but evolved from political changes and enacted policies in the parliament. History states that the office occurred during the revolutionary settlement that occurred between 1688 and 1720 and the political changes, where much political weight was shifted to the parliament from the sovereign rule. This work will focus on the powers of the prime minister and other political issues in the United Kingdom, specifically Britain (Adams, 2000). Powers of the prime minister The office of the prime minister in the United Kingdome is not in the constitution meaning there is no reference or a proper legal document that describes all matters that pertains to this office. Due to this, it remained uncommon to majority until the 20th century when the relation between the prime minister, sovereign government, cabinet and the parliament was appreciated. Prime minister’s powers include: the head of the government, meaning he is the chief officer of the executive and legislative arm of the government or the head of the cabinet. Here the prime minister signs policies debated upon by the legislators into full law. In some nations, the prime minister and the president or head of state must both agree with the policy before it actually becomes a full law. But in the United Kingdom, the Monarchy is a relief from active role in governmental affairs, hence it is the prime minister to solely sign such policies to full law. He has the powers to appoint or dismiss both cabinet members and ministers; he is viable to appointment or demotions must be in accordance to the cabinet’s member loyalty to the party and the prime minister himself. This power is perceived on different perspectives by different cabinet members. First, some think the prime minister would remain good to those who accomplish his wishes without raising any questions and this is despite any qualifications. The second group laments that the prime minister is a senior government official whose wishes or orders ought to be done without further questions (Negrine, 2002). The best solution to this debate is to establish a vetting procedure through which qualified people are vetted before being appointed by the prime minister, further more, the constitution should protect the cabinet members from official exploitations by senior most governmental powers, prime minister being one of them. He organizes business between the executive, civil service and legislators among other important governmental departments. The prime minister represents the Queen or monarchy in both domestic and international affairs. He has the overall control over the cabinet office, which is headed by the secretary of the cabinet, also the head of civil servants. Here the head of civil service must present some issues to the prime minister before the final verdicts are made. Since the head of civil servants is appointed by the prime minister, no aspirant would dare oppose the Prime Minister (Stephen, 2000). Politics is real where some leaders agree and disagree for the sake of good governorship. In my opinion a one sided governorship is more of a dictatorship or the state of psycho fancy. A majority of both appointed and aspiring senior government officials will always support the prime minister despite the infeasibilities. The constitution should be amended to protect the senior officials from such oppressions. A good government is that which cabinet and other senior officials are free to make their personal opinions for the sake of the citizens in general. Role of media in British Politics Britain is of the countries where media sector is at full liberty to keep the citizens informed of political issues or events. This is enhanced by reputable websites, blogs, radio and television broadcasting networks like BBC among others. Furthermore, Britain has a high circulating newspaper company that ensures fast spread of political news. However, this implies that political news is offered in different versions to the citizens. This means that some are distorted to lose the original meaning, and this has sparked some doubts and conflicts between the political leaders and the citizens. This work would elaborate on the role of the media in Britain politics and some of the difficulties experienced by the media professionals in conveying the political news to the citizens. Britain is a country with liberal democracy, its media is independence to scrutinize the accountability and any unacceptable actions then convey such information to the citizens. Such information can lead people to the streets carrying placards and demanding for their rights. Hence the political leaders would always ensure they serve their people according to the constitution. Such news would also reach other nations and this might compromise the relationship between Britain and other foreign countries in terms of trade, among other vital sectors (Blick, 2010). No country would jeopardize its reputation by dealing or being associated with a country with poor leadership. Hence the media acts like a check on the government power as well as influence to the citizens as a whole. Media may collaborate of political research firms to predict the political aspirants likely to snatch respective seats in any elections in Britain. Such seats include those of members of parliament among others. Furthermore television broadcasting networks may engage some political analysts to ascertain a certain political trend in the government. For example, the political analysts may compare the effectiveness of the current politicians and compare it with that of the previous ones to make the citizens decide whether they require change in the political regime or not. Independent media would always fight for the rights of the citizens. However, this has never been easy since some top most leaders tend to use their powers to manipulate the media. This limits them from reporting some sensitive matters to the public. We have seen media personalities arrested on mere allegations due to brushing shoulders with big men in the government. Although Britain has specific laws to protect the right of the media sector, some are not fully implemented or obeyed once some top most political figures are involved in some sagas. Media acts like a bridge between the political leaders and the citizens as far as communications are concerned. A group of people may carry their placards while marching on the streets protesting about some government mismanagement issues, but their petitions would be ineffective if the media fail to capture their voices or images then show it to the whole world. Politicians are always first to send their representatives in such scenes to save their reputations. On the other hand, top political leaders usually reach the citizens through internet, radio and television broadcasting networks among others. This saves the prime minister or the Queen from making several stops over to communicate to the citizens. Political leaders use different media platforms to convince the electorates. This is through television and radio broadcasting networks, the internet, and newspapers among others. Some citizens may lack the opportunity to attend political rallies due to financial and time inconveniencies. It is the role of media to pass such messages to the citizens and the entire world in general. One is likely to vote his or her favorite political candidate after learning the politician’s agenda and portfolio. Some national broadcasting channels usually organize for some debates to ascertain suitability of some political leaders, if not, the same media would convey the citizens’ wishes to the top political powers for some changes, as per the citizens’ wishes. Is the higher civil service is political or administrative The term civil servant implies a group of government employees, hired on a competitive vetting merit or any employee in the government sector excluding the military. However, different countries have got different ways to describe their civil servants, for instance, In United Kingdom; one only becomes a civil servant when appointed by the monarchy or the Queen. There has been a great debate whether the civil service is run on a political or administrative ground. It would be wise to differentiate the two before conveying different opinions with regard to the debate. Political rule is the rule based on loyalty but not necessarily qualifications, while administrative rule is that that observes some qualifications and certain laws or codes protecting both the leaders and the subjects from any kind of exploitations. Civil service in Britain has been thought to be more political since the senior most people ascent to power upon appointment by either the crown or the prime minister. Majority of the leader tend to remain loyal or obey the wishes to their appointees to maintain their jobs. Both the crown and the prime minister have the powers to appoint and demote their juniors, hence the majority wish not to dare oppose any orders or suggestions made by their seniors (Kavanagh, 2008). Secondly, there is no specific law protecting the rights of the civil servants once demoted by their seniors. This compels them to remain friendly to their seniors despite being misled. However, United Kingdom greatly reversed the way the government was being managed when more powers were extracted from the crown’s docket to the prime ministers’. The monarch could accomplish its wishes without much thought since nothing stood before the crowd in the United Kingdom, not even the law. Since the revolution, Prime Minister is the head of the state with the queen playing passive or neutral role in running the government. But a majority feels that prime this had less impact since the prime minister is responsible for appointing his political friends to take the cabinet offices plus that of the head of civil servants. Hence one must be remain loyal to be in such offices. However, the second school of thought is that the prime minister is right to maintain only those loyal to him in the cabinet and other civil servants' offices. The constitution requires the prime minister to be from a party with majority legislators, meaning it would make sense if the PM tolerates those against his side. This might make him lose the seat. Secondly, its human nature, nobody would wish to work with opposing career enemy that may take you down any time. The PM’s office is very sensitive that a single mistake would see the prime minister resign; hence he must remain vigilant by appointing only loyalties to occupy the senior most offices. The third group lament that although the PM is responsible for such appointments, the constitution should be amended to protect the rights of civil servants. Each person in the government should be free to express his/her opinion without any fear. However, such expressions should be made in such away that the powers of the PM or the crown are not compromise. In short, freedom of speech should be applicable among the civil servants (Bennister, 2012). To conclude, the prime minister is the head of the state since he is the head of the cabinet and legislative arms of the government, sine the revolution that saw the Queen assume a passive role in the governance of the nation. The prime minister must be from a party with the highest legislators in the common house. He makes major appointments in the cabinet and civil service sectors, while he is appointed by the Queen. The media has played a great role in acting like a bridge between the citizens and the political leaders, but above all it checks on the leaders so that they exercise their powers and influence in accordance with the constitution (Day, 2003). This protects the rights of the citizens from poor governance. The debate of whether the civil service offices are politically or administratively managed has led to three opinions. The first being that the powers of the powers of the prime minister and the crown to appoint or demote their juniors compels the latter to remain loyal, the second opinion is that it is natural to work with career political friends and not enemies and the third group of people suggest that the constitution should be amended to allow freedom of speech and expression among the civil servants. References Adams, I. (2000). Ideology Politics Britain Today. England: Manchester University press. Bennister, M. (2012). Prime ministers in power: political Leadership in Britain and Australia. United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan. Blick, A. (2010). Premiership: the development, nature and power of the British prime minister. USA: Imprint Academic press. Day, N. (2003). Political participation and democracy in Britain. United Kingdom: Cambridge University press. Kavanagh, D. (2008). The Powers Behind the Prime Minister. England: HarperCollins Publishers Limited. Negrine, R. (2002). Politics and the mass media in Britain. USA: Routledge. Stephen, A. (2000). The British Prime minister. United Kingdom: Duke university press. Read More