Powers of Prime Minister - Essay Example

Powers of Prime Minister The prime minister is the most senior among the high ranking officials who constitute the executive branch of government in a parliamentary system. When an individual becomes prime minister of his or her country, he can enjoy all the powers of leaders of the opposite parties and such powers are reinforced by virtue of his position. Other than this, he gets inundated with numerous other powers that are at the same time formidable and filled with responsibilities. The most significant and decisive power that is held by the prime minister is to employ ministers who he thinks is suitable for any position and to dismiss any minister who has proved to be failure in his position whenever he thinks is plausible. For this purpose there is no indication in the constitution that he would need consent from the parliament or the party. The constitution of a country vests this power on the prime minister thereby assigning him the task of forming an administration. The individual in question on becoming the prime minister becomes the only person responsible for nominating his cabinet and all other ministers. The president cannot alter the list of ministers formed by the prime minister. In the case of all nationalized industries, it is the prime minister’s prerogative to approve or dismiss the appointment of chairmen and he also can enjoy the privilege of appointing the person he wishes to go forward. The prime minister also has the right to appoint “permanent secretaries, ambassadors, chiefs of staff and the heads of security services.” (Benn, 229) Each individual who gets appointed as the prime minister lays down a personal agenda of functions for all ministers. Such functions include collective cabinet responsibility to supervise all broadcasts and monitoring all articles that appear in the press. The agenda formed by the prime minister does not need to be submitted in draft for getting approval from the cabinet (Benn, 228-229). The second greatest power of the prime minister “lies in his complete personal control of the conduct of government business as it is carried out by ministers and officials.” He makes all decisions regarding the items of business that need to be considered and the items that need to be rejected. He has the power to form cabinet committees, select members for the committees and has the option not to reveal their existence to the public, parliament and also to the other members of the cabinet. The prime minister also has the power to distribute or to not distribute papers written by the cabinet members. He can also choose not to distribute committee papers to those members of the cabinet who do not serve in the committee. He has the power to appoint interdepartmental official committees and through them can instruct the civil service on their business activities. He can also monitor the responsibilities of a department minister. The prime minister can also control the passage of information about government work to the parliament or public. He can also arrange for “unofficial briefing of the press or trusted correspondents” and also has the right to confirm or deny such briefings later on (Benn, 230). There is however a limitation over the direct authority of the prime minister over the executive power of the parliament. Although he has the right to give instructions to the ministers, in practice he cannot make direct decisions regarding the administrative activities. The cabinet enjoys the executive power, and the sphere of administration is delegated among the cabinet members who preside over administrative agencies. The prime minister “controls administrative operations only through the cabinet, which operates under a rule of unanimity.” (Shinoda, 45) The real scenario of the political world further inhibits the legal authorities of a prime minister. For instance, according to the constitution a prime minister has the sole responsibility and power to indiscriminately appoint his cabinet ministers according to his own sense of judgement, but politics that exist between different parties do not allow him to exercise that power. However, highly influential prime ministers have more freedom in the appointment of cabinet members and can gain control over policy developments (Shinoda, 45). Role of media in British politics The primary function of media is to convey news and information to the general public in an impartial manner so that people can form their own opinion regarding any issues. An independent media is an essential ingredient of any liberal democracy. If the government was able to control all its activities and policies then the accountability of government regarding its working process would have been minimal and also the government would have unacceptable margin of influence over the common people’s actions. For this reason the virtues of independent media cannot be overlooked. In a liberal democracy, there must be freedom of the press as its objective is to “continually scrutinize the government and provide people with accurate and impartial information so that they can act on it accordingly.” Thus the media virtually has a controlling power over the power and influence of the government over its citizens. In the last few decades, the costs of various media like radio, TV, satellite and internet services have fallen drastically and this has led to a huge growth in mass media. This has accentuated the flow of political information to a much wider section of the society. Moreover, this growth in media services has accelerated the contact between various organizations and their target audiences (Lynch). In the twentieth century there has been an immense expansion of mass media in Britain as a result of technological innovations and removal of stamp and paper duties which led to fall of prices of newspapers. The press plays a powerful role in the British politics and is feared by politicians of all parties. The contribution of the media in British politics is a matter of controversy. This is because, although newspapers and television generally do not impact the political environment, they have however not been mere conveyors of political news. Historians James Curran and Jean Seaton consider the media as “both catalysts and symptoms of change.” (Goodlad, 31) However, there is also a negative side of media’s role in politics. The manner how media presents the political scenario can create adverse opinion among the public. The structured view that the media often conveys can shape the pattern of people’s perspective of British politics. People become suspicious of motives of the politicians because of how politics is presented by the media. The media always strives for breaking news and in this process ends up providing an incoherent and unexplained picture of political occurrences. Similarly, radio and televisions “give only a limited presentation of the political process during which politicians make cooperative decisions even when campaigns take place.” (Degunther, 3) The news reports are partly formed of agendas prepared by the broadcasters and this can impact public opinion because the agendas can constitute of political ideologies that are unbelievable for people. In addition, media does not cover the House of Commons where political debates take place. Instead, the focus remains on the politicians who represent their respective parties. This makes the politicians as images of their political parties. As a result of this, if people are not satisfied by the style and manner of the politicians on TV, then this can create a negative image of the entire political party in the minds of the people (Degunther, 3). Contribution of Parliament in democratic governance The primary and the most significant feature of a democratic government is that it should represent the views and opinions of the people of the nation. This means that “parliament should reflect the popular will as expressed in the choices electors make for their representatives and for the political parties in whose name they stand.” (Beetham, 13) A parliament that cannot stand by this primary rule of public representation, whether through faults in the electoral processes or in the electoral system, will be less capable of reflecting public opinion on daily important matters. A country’s population can be socially, culturally, religiously and ethnically diverse, and as such these social diversities of the population must also be reflected by a democratic parliament. A parliament that cannot represent this diversity will insert a sense of isolation and a feeling of disadvantage among some social groups and communities. This can affect the quality of public life and can disturb the consistency in the political system and society in general. This representative objective of a democratic government is partly achieved through the formation of parliament whose members are appointed after the election process, and partly through impartial parliamentary processes. This provides the scope to all members to come forward with their perspectives, to equally take part in all parliamentary activities, and to advance their parliamentary careers. Although, apparently a parliament is formed by a pre-parliamentary process, parliaments have the legislative power to influence their own composition (Beetham, 13). There are two aspects of the accountability of the parliament, and accountability is a basic requirement in a democracy. The first aspect is the key role that a parliament plays as representative of the common people. This role includes “holding the government to account through its oversight function.” (Beetham, 95) The second aspect is the accountability that the parliament and its members have to those who have elected them. There are many dimensions to the term accountability. One concept is that a holder of the office needs to give an account of his performance after an event has occurred to a body to which they are answerable or responsible. In a democratic country, the primary requirements are public discussions and debates; as such in democracy such accountability of an office holder to a higher authority through ongoing dialogue is an important element. This aspect of parliamentary accountability is overlapped by a second aspect that requires an office holder to “meet certain standards of performance and integrity in the conduct of their office, subject to adjudication by a responsible body which has the power to impose some sanction in the event of serious failure to meet these standards.” In this regard too, the members of parliament are accountable to their electorates who can ban the members from getting reappointed through electoral procedures (Beetham, 95). A parliament in a democratic country needs to face the future by adapting to the pressures of a society and global system that go through rapid changes. At the same time it is the responsibility of the parliament to protect the traditions of its country. It means making policies that are adaptable to the changing times and to the parliament’s own contribution as a guardian of democracy. It also means that the parliaments should engage in long-term thinking for the future benefits of the country (Beetham, 193). Works Cited Beetham, David. “Parliament and Democracy in the twenty-first century”, Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2006, January 15, 2013 from: http://www.ipu.org/PDF/publications/democracy_en.pdf Benn, Tony. “The Powers of the Prime Minister in Office.” In The British Prime Minister, edited by Anthony Stephen King, 228-230. Durham: Duke Univ. Press, 1985 Degunther, Alina. Role of the British Media in Contemporary Politics, Germany: GRIN Verlag, 2011 Goodlad, Graham, “The Media and British Politics in the Twentieth Century”, History Review, No.46 (September, 2003) 31-35 Lynch, Matthew, “Analyzing the Media’s Role in the Political Process”, The Huffington Post, November 11, 2011, January 15, 2013 from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-lynch-edd/analyzing-the-medias-role_b_1083914.html Shinoda, Tomohito. Leading Japan: The Role of the Prime Minister, USA: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2000 Read More