Issues of the Convention of Ministerial Responsibility - Essay Example

In the countries that have elected governments, the elected executive body is not only powerful to take decisions on behalf of a common man, but theyare also responsible for the offices they hold. Every ministry has its own responsibilities. Off course the Ministers have lots of staff working under them, but still it is a ministerial responsibility to make sure that everything goes well. Carelessness on part of one member of the ministry which results in overall discomfort of the nation cannot be simply ignored. UK government has laid down very clear responsibilities for all ministers and ministries. It is simply not possible for anyone holding the office to get away with misdoings and carelessness. The office bearers are answerable to the parliament in general and the constitution of UK is strong enough to keep a check on everyone who has power and who is holding the offices in various ministries. To ensure the departments and governing bodies work properly, the government has a set of rules, and the responsibilities of these ministries are known to the general public. Thus if anyone goes against the norm, it is noticed and pointed out by the general public. The scenario created in the case is a very interesting one. First, the family minister who is supposed to protect the family unit and its respect is having an extra marital affair. Then the minister of social welfare is not willing to accept her fault and as a result lots of people are kept waiting for their social welfare funds. Thirdly, the prime minister simply finds it easy to ignore the no confidence vote!!! If for a moment one believes that this could happen in the UK government and House of Commons, it means that there practically would be no constitution to stop the powerful from destroying those who are powerless against them. Well, thanks heavens, this is not the case in general. The case is a piece of fiction which is too far fetched. In the past we do have examples of ministers who have abided by the rules and legislations provided to them by the constitution. Constitution for any elected government is the supreme authority. With the constitution in place, the ministers have the guideline for them to work upon. The Crichel Down Affair (1954) is one case that proves the importance of ministerial responsibility. : "Crichel Down was a piece of farmland in Dorset compulsorily bought by the government for defence use. Commander George Martin, son of the original farmer, wanted to buy the land back in the 1950s now that it was no longer used by the MoD. However the Ministry of Agriculture resisted, wanting to use the land for experimental farming in a time of rationing and agricultural development. However, Martin, a former equerry in the Royal Family, had very influential friends and stirred up much trouble in the local Conservative Party and government backbenches. There followed a public inquiry which criticized the department's decision and civil servants, especially their methods. It was seen as an example of an over-powerful state. Finally Dugdale announced that Martin could buy the land back and told the House of Commons he was resigning." Dugdale's resignation went down in history as an honourable, even heroic, one: a minister taking responsibility for civil servant's actions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerial_responsibility) The issues raised by the scenario: Keeping this incident in view, the question that comes to my mind to carry forward this debate is that what are the measures taken by the government to ensure that the ministers are able to meet their responsibilities Is it just natural that the personal affairs of a minister can be a real concern in the dispensation of his or her public duties What are the ministerial ethics we are looking for Do the media have any role in pointing the faults of ministers out to them Also, we need to know if collective Ministerial Responsibility myth or a reality With reference to the scenario stated, an extra marital affair, which is specifically in the personal interest of the minister, is of no concern to the parliamentary affairs, and therefore has no significance in the discharge of the minister's public duty. Then what is it Well, in my opinion it is nothing but an unnecessary charge or an allegation by the opposition party to create confusion in the normal functioning of the day-to-day parliamentary affairs, carried out with the wrong intension of disrupting the minister's political reputation and serving its vested political interests. The only cause of concern here is that this minister himself is supposed to guard the family unit in UK. Can we consider him justified in having an extra marital affair For an ordinary person, may be it can be considered as only his own affair, but for a minister who is supposedly the strength of the family unit in UK, having an extra marital affair is ethically wrong. He professes family unity in public gathering and media appearances, and he himself is not responsible enough to run his own household. In general such an issue can be considered as his personal issue. The constitution may not hold anything against him to pin him down, but the fact remains there. He has not behaved ethically. Write discusses the UK parliament and structure in his book. As per my understanding of the British Law, the constitution compensates the ministers for the discharge of their respective public duties - The salaries of ministers' range from 45,815 a year for junior ministers to 64,749 for Cabinet ministers. The salary packages are even better in House of Lords. 38,894 for junior ministers to 52,260 for Cabinet ministers is being paid in House of Lord. The Prime Minister salary is 78,292 and the Lord Chancellor's salary is 120,179. So he is answerable for the financial gifts he has been receiving. If probed, it will lead to other issues of misconduct by this minister. (1999: 28) Similarly, in the other case, the woman minister is not willing to take the responsibility of the problems caused in her ministry. She is responsible for the welfare of the general people, and she is not willing to listen to people's wailing when her department finals to provide the needy with proper social welfare. This is irresponsible on her part. This is not only morally wrong, if the government has enough proofs, she can be tried for it. This is what Woodhouse suggests. (1994: 25) The principle of Ministerial Responsibility is important as it holds an elected official accountable and answerable for every single government decision. Another consequence of Ministerial Responsibility is that it enables ministers to closely scrutinize their departmental activities to perform better. However, the accountability of the minister is ensured in question time or question period. It is disappointing that ignorance of misbehavior is presented as an excuse and the doctrine of Ministerial Responsibility erodes as the minister refuses to take responsibility for 'the most culpable'. As L.J Rose observed, "The individual responsibility of a minister makes him, and him alone, answerable for all acts or failures to act, of the department over which he presides, even though he may or may not personally be to blame. He cannot shed his responsibility on to a public servant. Only by acceptance of this individual responsibility can effective public control of government be maintained in a democracy." (http://webdiary.com.au/cms). Considering the third case; its violation of the constitution by the Prime minister. If he loses the vote of confidence even by one vote, he is supposed to step down and accept the decision made by the House of Commons. He is making fun of the elected legislature and assembly. He is trying to use his powers not like an elected prime minister but as a dictator. This is plain violation of the constitution and after the announcement that he will take decisions on his own; he must be tried for the offence. Marshall discusses in his book that a prime minister has this responsibility of taking the decision with the confidence of the House of Commons. He has no right to take decisions independently especially in case of serous issues. Thus he is violating the constitution here. After the no confidence vote he needs to be dethroned. The policy under discussion here is an important one and the prime minister has no power as per the constitution to force a decision or to take any decision without the backing of House of Commons. (1989: 35) In United Kingdom too there is a provision which strengthens the doctrine, "that if a vote of no confidence is passed in parliament, the government is responsible collectively, and thus the entire government resigns." In this context, the second scenario stated, cripples all rules of the convention of Ministerial responsibility. Forcing others to accept his views, being authoritative, leakage of information to media and ignoring the no confidence votes are all great constitutional crimes. The role of the media in propagating the allegations is noteworthy as it involves vested interests of the media in terms of wide response from the viewers and readers and recognition of their respective channels as the "ones those sell hot news". As a tradition the ministerial responsibilities demand from a minister to resign in case his ministry conducts a blunder. References: 1. Marshall, Geoffery. Ministerial Responsibility (Oxford Readings in Politics & Government) Oxford University Press, 1989. 2. Write, Tony. The British Political Process: An Introduction. Routledge, 1999. 3. Woodhouse, Diana. Ministers and Parliament: Accountability in Theory and Practice. Clarendon Press, 1994. 4. 6 Aug 2008, Ministerial Responsibility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerial_responsibility. 5. 8 Aug 2008, The future of Ministerial Responsibility Read More