The Factors that may Have Led to the Rise of Prime Ministerial Power - Essay Example

The Factors that may Have Led to the Rise of Prime Ministerial Power The prime ministers are in charge of government business and they are responsible for appointing and demoting cabinet and other senior officers White. The constitution recognizes the duties of the prime ministers, but there is no formal record of what a premier should do and what they should not do (White 87). They are answerable to the parliament, the monarch and the voters in the way they carry out their duties. They assign duties to the cabinet and other officials especially in regard to policy making and implementation. In the recent past, the political powers have shifted towards the premier hence making them more authoritative than ever before (Buckley 7). This scenario could be attributed to inadequate formal procedure for devolving the powers of the state among the political leaders and civil servants. The prime minister has the duty to watch over, manage and direct the government business. They are responsible for controlling the parliament and the process of drafting the policies (White 88). However, as the party leaders there is an increasing media exposure since the prime ministers are increasingly reporting the progress of the political parties. For example, in some nations like the United Kingdom the prime ministers have assumed unconstitutional powers of chief spokespersons. The media especially television and radio have focused a lot on the prime ministers giving them an opportunity to get in touch with the electorates in order to provide the electorates with the select a leader who will be an effective orator (Strangio, Hart & Walter 264). Therefore, the emerging need to have a prime minister who can communicate effectively has amplified the influence of the prime ministers. The mandates of the prime ministers are clearly stipulated in the laws. The prime minister is the leader of the government operations and is in s/he coordinates the party issues in order to strengthen both the party and the government (White 96). They are responsible for selecting and controlling the operations of the cabinet. Although the roles of the prime ministers are clarified in the constitution, there are day-to-day political issues which require the effort of the executives in order to come up with a quick solution. Prime minister is the senior executive in the government hence s/he is charged with authority to find the required solution because the constitution cannot be amended on a daily basis to provide a solution to the emerging issues (Samuels & Shugart 254). The fact that the prime minister has to make some decisions beyond what is stipulated in the constitution means the prime minister is powerful what he is portrayed by constitutional. In the governments which are formed by one party, the prime minister is responsible for managing the governments business. The premier is concerned about the progress of the cabinet and national assembly or the House of Commons (White 102). However, the position of the primer is different in situations where the nation is headed by a coalition government. With more than one party taking part in the management of the national issues, this has resulted to sharing of powers among the party leaders (Almeida, Pinto & Bermeo 34). Those leaders have to consult each other before making government decisions. Sometimes the party leaders meet in advance to discuss the issues before they present them to the cabinet for further discussion. For example, in United Kingdom, the conservative leader and the Prime Minister David Cameron and his deputy Nick Clegg usually meet in advance to conclude on the policy issues before they present them to the cabinet for further discussion (Bennister 34). After the issues have been discussed by the cabinets, the next move is to present them to the legislative house for a final decision (Samuels & Shugart 267). Therefore, unlike in a single party government where the premier experiences less friction from the cabinet and the parliament in making decisions, in a coalition government the pressure is quite intense. This implies that the prime minister in a coalition government should be fairly powerful in order to influence the leaders from different political parties to support his or her policy. Therefore, the premiers in the coalition government are becoming more influential since they have to win the favor of different party leaders and their supporters before they can sail a government policy through (Strangio, Hart & Walter 281). If the premier is unable to win the favor of the other party leaders they will be insignificant and redundant as far as policy making is concerned. The increase in globalization has influenced the interactions of global political leaders. The political leaders from different leaders meet frequently to discuss international issues focused to cement international relationships (White 119). The prime ministers frequently attend those international conventions to share in decision making. The premiers represent their governments in those conventions and bring the feedback of what was concluded in the summit. Therefore, the participation of the prime ministers in the international conventions has increased the significance of the premiers both nationally and internationally (Bennister 48). They represent their nations in the international summits hence the more they interact with the international community the more powers they become. The head of government is answerable to the parliament for the conducts of the cabinet and the civil servants (Seymour-Ure 39). As the head of the government business, the prime minister appoints the cabinets and the executives of the civil servants. In case, a minister or civil servants underperforms, it is the duty of the premier to replace the underperforming individual or assign them a different function. In one party government, the prime minister can freely make decisions on how to run the government business since the cabinet and the civil servants are all working under one party. The transparency and accountability of the government operations is just a duty of the premier and the party executives (Buckley 24). However, in a coalition government the prime minister is under intense pressure to account for the government operations. Therefore, the premier has to exercise more powers in order to traverse the political walls of different political parties forming the coalition government (Samuels & Shugart 296). The increasing needs for a more accountable government operations has heightened the ministerial supervisory roles over the state management. In the ancient time, the passing of policies was through an intensive discussion by a select committee. This took a very long duration because the committees had to meet on several occasions before they could come up with amicable solution (Seymour-Ure 54). Sometimes the committees failed to arrive at a conclusion compelling the prime minister to form another committee to continue with drafting of the policy. This process was so tedious and consumed a lot of time. The delay in drafting and implementing of significant policies limited the efficiency of the government and the power of the premier. The power of the premier is determined by his or her efficiency and effectiveness of coordinating the government activities. Therefore, the longer it took the committee to draft and a policy process the less efficient the government became and the less powerful the premier was (Poguntke & Webb 261). However, pressure and desire for quick implementation of government policies has created the need for better strategies. The premiers have resulted to quicker decision making strategies whereby they select a few experts whom they consult on whatever issue they want to solve. This has improved the efficiency of conducting government activities hence increasing the premier’s influence (Aucoin, Lori & Mark 41). More powerful premiers require faster and less complicated approaches when making a decision. The authority of the premier to manage the government affairs and make rapid decisions has influenced the powers of the prime ministers (Pearce & Goodlad 94). The premier has a prerogative to supervise and appoint the cabinet and senior executives in the government. Consequently, abuse the power of appointing senior government officials whom he shall work with in order to increase performance. Some prime ministers ignore the roles of other government officials and end up pursuing personal interests. For example, in UK the premiers selected experts to work on policy issues and surpassed the roles of the cabinet (Aucoin, Lori & Mark 54). In 1964 Richard Crossman who was a Labor party legislature claimed “the role of the prime minister” was changing into presidential system. Similarly, Mo Mowlan claimed that in Tony Blairs government, the government activities were adopting “prime ministerial style” with the powers to make decision shifting to one person. During his reign, Tony Blair ignored the role of cabinet in decision making and even reduced the number of experts who advised him (Bennister 63). Probably the reason why he preferred working with a small number of expert consultants was to ease the process for decision making. Commanding a small number of experts whom he had elected personally would enable the premier to exercise his authority and push his agenda into the government policies (Strangio, Hart & Walter 298). Therefore, the absolute authority exercised by the premiers in the management and patronage of the cabinet and other government affairs caused the premiers to assume all powers. This may have been aggravated by lack of premier’s express accountability to the electorates. The actual procedures of how the prime minister is supposed to run the government have not been incorporated in the constitution (Poguntke & Webb 273). The premiers have been blamed for using excessive force to carry out their duties of controlling internal affairs of the state. For example, Stephen Harper of Canada did not respect the opinions of other leaders, and he always endorsed his agenda for the cabinet and parliament to affirm. The premier failed to disclose full information pertaining to the government to the parliament, and he also refused to respond to the questions asked by the parliament (Bealey 75). When Stephen Harper was blamed for his underperformance of the state business, his defendants argued that the premier was propagating the practices of his predecessors. There was nothing new regarding his conducts and since there was evidence that he had actually strayed away from his duty then his conducts were inappropriate (Pearce & Goodlad 94). Therefore, considering the position of the premier and inability of the parliament of the cabinet to accuse the premier on account of underperformance, it can be said that the party dominance bestowed premiers more powers. The constitution does not specify duties and roles of the premiers (Seymour-Ure 97). For example, in Canada and UK the roles of the premier are only understood verbally while some procedures have not been put into black and white. Although the parliament has powers to remove the premier from the throne by “a vote of no confidence,” the law does not specify the procedure for passing the vote of no confidence. Furthermore, the laws do not define what constitutes the vote of no confidence and there is not standard process for removing the premier from power (Buckley 36). Therefore, even though the parliament could exercise their powers to demote an underperforming premier, it would pose challenges on how to go about the entire process in the “democratization of constitution” (Aucoin, Lori & Mark) will define and restrict the political. The powers among the government leaders rather that centralizing the powers on a few individual or one person in this issue (68). In conclusion, the premiers’ powers have been in the rise because the constitution does not address the issue adequately. The media influence, international collaborations, emergence of coalition governments, political party dominance and the absolute powers to oversight the government affairs have contributed to increase in premiers’ power. Democratization of the constitution is an essential tool in order to ensure fair distribution of powers among the government leaders. Lack of formal constitutions in Canada, UK and some other countries limits the powers of the legislature to tackle the issue of devolution of powers. Therefore, nations should implement formal constitutions in order to distribute the powers of the government from one person to all government officials. Works Cited Almeida, Pedro, T., Pinto, Antonio, C. & Bermeo, Nancy. “Who Governs Southern Europe? Regime Change and Ministerial Recruitment, 1850-2000.” Frank Cass, (2003): 11-47 Aucoin, Peter; Lori, Beth, T. & Mark, Jarvis, D. “Democratizing the Constitution: Reforming Responsible Government.” Emond Montgomery Publications, (2011): 23-197 Bennister, Mark. “The Prime Ministers in Power: Political Leadership in Britain and Australia.” Palgrave Macmillan, (2012): 25-76 Bealey, Frank. “The Power in Business and State: A Historical Analysis of Its Concentration.” Routledge, (2001): 13-97. Buckley, Stephen. “The Prime Minister and Cabinet.” Edinburgh University Press, (2006): 1-65 Poguntke, Thomas & Webb, Paul. “Presidentialization of Politics: The Comparative Study of Modern Democracies.” Oxford University Press, (2007): 257-364 Pearce, Robert & Goodlad, Graham. “British Prime Ministers from Balfour to Brown” Routledge, (2013):1-127 Seymour-Ure, Colin. “The Prime Ministers and the Media: Issues of Power and Control.” John Wiley & Sons, (2008): 22-136 Samuels, David J. & Shugart, Matthew, S. “The Presidents, Parties, and Prime Ministers.” Cambridge University Press, (2010): 252-307 Strangio, Paul; Hart, Paul t & Walter, James. “Understanding Prime-Ministerial Performance: Comparative Perspectives.” Oxford University Press, (2013): 257-312 White, Graham. “Cabinets and First Ministers.” UBC Press, (2012): 85-134. Read More