How Many Checks and Balances the British Government Labours Under - Essay Example

Order: 1265492 "In the UK political system, there are few checks and balances on the power of the government to do what it wants"- Discuss Introduction To determine how few or how many checks and balances the British government labours under, and whether they have increased or decreased over the years, it is necessary to note the special features of the British democracy. First, the UK has an unwritten Constitution or, more appropriately, an uncodified one; second, it has a unitary system of government that has remained unimpaired by devolution of powers to subnational States, such as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Third, the UK has a monarchy that is not ineffectual for having power without authority as every official work is carried out in the name of the Queen; fourth, there is a parliamentary system which, while appearing to give unlimited power to the government, especially to the Prime Minister, in fact keeps both on a tight leash. Fifth, there is a two-party system which keeps the party in power continually on its guard lest the Opposition should make political capital out of just one of its tumbles on policy; sixth and last, there is a culture of democracy that preceded formal establishment of democratic institutions. Parenthetically, checks and balances are a lot more than mere separation of powers: the essence of the latter is autonomy for every branch, which can only ensure that one branch of the government does not poach on the particular preserves of endeavour of any other. But checks and balances ensure that no branch of the Constitution lets another overreach its powers. For example, parliament makes laws and the judiciary interprets them in the light of the Constitution, even though in the case of Duport Steel versus Sirs in 1980 the judges said "it is parliament's opinion on these matters that is paramount". Interestingly, under the British Constitution judges cannot be removed from office except by impeachment which has been very rare. Also, the executive is discouraged from criticising judicial decision. PM's Powers The US President is often called the world's most powerful functionary. However, the federal structure of the USA curbs his powers. That, at least in theory, is not the case with the British Prime Minister. The powers of Congress and the Supreme Court balance those that a President might exercise; the US Constitution lays down what the President can and cannot do, and the codified document can be changed only by the Supreme Court. Such constraints do not obtain in the UK; the general powers exercised by a British Prime Minister include that to appoint, reshuffle or dismiss Cabinet ministers, create peers in the House of Lords, give out honours, appoint ambassadors, top civil servants, bishops and judges, determine government business and Cabinet discussions and agendas, withhold information from parliament deemed necessary, use the media via a lobby system, terminate the life of a government and call a general election. Thus, the British Prime Minister would appear to have abundant powers. . The Prime Minister's position as leader of the majority party in the House of Commons, together with his position as head of government, thus combining legislative and executive powers, apparently amount to immense accretion of power. Additionally, many of the Prime Minister's powers derive from the prerogative powers of the Monarch. These extensive powers are wielded independently of parliament, and effectively give every Prime Minister the powers of a head of State, which include being in charge of the armed forces and security services, negotiating treaties. All this suggests that the Prime Minister can act like a virtual autocrat. Constraints However, this is not so, as there are constraints on his/her powers. For instance, he/she cannot afford to be seen to surround himself/herself with "nodding donkeys", as a political commentator put it. The party he/she leads will not tolerate it, and every five years, at the most, the Prime Minister and his party have to present themselves before the country which will vote on their record in government. A Prime Minister who is seen to be going against the British tradition of democratic government whereby the party is all-inclusive at Westminster will lose out when the party withdraws its support to him/her. Margaret Thatcher lost the support of both her Cabinet and the Conservative Party when she was seen as being too overbearing and out of touch. A Prime Minister who loses the support of his/her party is doomed even if he/she does have the power to reward loyalty. (Historylearningsite; 2008) Bush-Blair contrast Tony Blair had a parliamentary majority, but many in his Labour Party disliked his apparent desire to make decisions by himself, or with a small non-elected clique, thus bypassing both the Cabinet and Westminster. Again, during the fight against terrorism, President Bush had consulted both the supporters and opponents of an attack on Iraq without the prior consent of the UN Security Council. Commons, on the other hand, complained that it was being sidelined by not having a full debate on the issue. Many, however, had said that Blair had shied away from Commons out of the fear that many of his own partymen might oppose his decision; and that was yet another check on the Prime Minister's powers. Also, Blair was often accused of exercising Presidential powers. Subtle Curbs The powers of the US President are limited by Article II of the Constitution; however, Commons does not formulate policy but merely discusses proposed legislation and votes on it. The Senate can remove the President from office; the President cannot remove a Senator. The Senate ratifies the President's Cabinet; financial issues start in the House of Representatives; Congress can reject the budget proposals of the President. But in Britain, the Chancellor's budget is introduced regardless of what parliament thinks; and except through a party revolt, the ruling party cannot remove the Prime Minister. Judicial Review While all this is true, it is no less true that the Prime Minister does not have a carte blanche. First, of course, are the courts; in recent years, judges have fashioned judicial review into a powerful check on the executive. (Rozenberg; 1998).Then there are the media. Tabloid newspapers have forced from office ministers whose standards of morality and behaviour were unacceptable. And then there are constitutional changes: with the prospect of proportional representation for elections to Commons, governments may no longer be able to rely on landslide majorities; also, the central government has much less power with a Freedom of Information Act, incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic legal systems, and devolution to Scotland, Wales and, perhaps to a lesser extent, in London and some of the English regions. Separation of Powers Though the principle of separation of powers plays a role in the British constitutional doctrine, the UK Constitution is often described as having a "weak separation of powers". For instance, the executive forms a subset of the legislature as does, to a lesser extent, the judiciary. The Prime Minister, the chief executive, must, by convention, be a member of the Commons and can be removed from office by a simple majority vote. Also, while the courts are independent, the Law Lords, who are the final arbiters of judicial disputes, sit simultaneously in the House of Lords, although this arrangement is due to end in 2009 when the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is set up. Besides, because of parliamentary sovereignty, a system such as that of the UK is more accurately described as a fusion of powers. (www.answers.com/2008) Monarchy Development of the English Constitution is based on this fusion in the person of the Monarch who has formal role in the legislature (parliament, the repository of political and legal sovereignty, is the Crown-in-Parliament, and is summoned and dissolved by the Queen who must give her Royal Assent to all Bills for them to become Acts), the executive (the Queen appoints all ministers of Her Majesty's government who govern in the name of the Crown) and the judiciary (the Queen, as the fount of justice, appoints all senior judges, and all public prosecutions are brought in her name). It is important that the Queen remains traditional and aloof. (Bollocks; 2006). She forms the centre of the Establishment. Above all, the Monarch is the supreme head of State and the source of all power in the land. Devolution Though the Labour Party has a healthy majority in Westminster, its power in Scotland is reasonably well balanced by the power of the Scots National Party, in Wales by Plaid Cymru and in Northern Ireland by Unionist groups and Sein Fein. Within Westminster, Tories and Liberal Democrats provide healthy political rivalry. (Trueman; 2008) There have been several experiments with devolution to subnational governments. The three Home Rule Bills (1886, 1893 and 1912) aimed at the setting up of a devolved government in Ireland while retaining sovereignty at Westminster, and they all failed mainly for what is now known as the West Lothian Question (because it was constantly being put in the 1970s by Tam Dalyell, then Labour MP for West Lothian (answers.com/2008) The Question asked what were to be the numbers, powers and duties of upper-tier (Westminster) MPs for a devolved territory: If their numbers are left untouched (as in the Scotland and Wales Acts 1978), the devolved territory is privileged vis--vis the rest of the country; if they are abolished (1886) the devolved territory suffers taxation without representation. If they are allowed to vote at Westminster on non-devolved matters but not on devolved matters (considered in 1886) the majority of votes on devolved matters might be for a different party to the majority of votes on non-devolved matters. Coherent Answer The most coherent answer to the West Lothian Question is probably to reduce the numbers of such Westminster MPs and to ring-fence devolved matters in the devolved territory, as for Northern Ireland in the Government of Ireland Act 1920, though that Act broke down in 1972 because Westminster continued to intervene in the devolved affairs of Northern Ireland. The difficulty of answering the West Lothian Question drove various parties (Liberals in 1912 and the Labour in 1991-92) to propose schemes for Home Rule All Round in which the whole country was to be given lower-tier assemblies. But either the whole of England would have been given one assembly (the 1912 proposal) in which case it would have become overwhelmingly stronger than the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies, and there would have been very little left for Westminster to do; or each region of England would have been given an assembly (the 1991 proposal). Devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland was implemented in 1998 and 1999. Conclusion Checks and balances (meant to keep any one branch from making policy or law harmful to the nation) are not any the less potent for not always being obvious. For instance, ministers are taking advantage of lax lobbying rules to exploit political contacts for private gains, MPs have found. The public administration committee has demanded greater transparency and stricter regulation of industry, and a few years' ban on former ministers lobbying for private industry. (www.news.yahoo.com/2009) References: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/president_versus_prime_ minister/ 2008 Rozenberg, Joshua; http://news/bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/talking_politics/88/82.stm/1998/3/6 Bollocks; http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2006-06/m/2006/6/23 Trueman, Chris; http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/party_systems.htm/2008 http://www.british-constitution.blogspot.com/2007 http://www.news.yahoo.com/2009 Read More