Roles of Party Leadership in the House of Representatives - Coursework Example

ROLES OF PARTY LEADERSHIP IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Many people at present refer to themselves as independent voters and squabbling with the House parties is always condemned. However parties are more important in both current senate and the House of Representatives. Political parties organize leadership in the House even though they have no big role in election as before. After any legislative election, the party with most representatives is referred to as the Majority and in each house and the less dominant party designated the minority (Cox & McCubbins, 2005). These designations are important because the significant leadership’s positions are given to the majority, like the House Speaker. The same party usually holds both houses, but they are split occasionally. For example, the house of Majority was democratic from 1983-1985 with the Senate majority being Republican. This paper therefore looks into details the importance of the party leaders in the House of Representatives. Party discipline has also been discussed in relation to the current House of Representatives and its significance in the House. The two factors, party leadership and party discipline are the ones putting the house floor at pace and active. At the start of each new House, the party members usually gather in special meetings to discuss the themes and policies of the party and to elect their leaders through majority vote. Democrats usually refer to these meetings as caucus and the republicans call them conference. Later, when each house summon in its first session, leaders of the House, including the House Speaker and the leader of the majority in the senate are elected (Rohde, 2010). The majority party usually provides true selections behind the scenes ahead of time during their selection of party leaders, even though the whole house usually votes for its leaders. House leaders usually tend to dominate more powers as compared to the senate leaders since the house has 435 of its members as compared to the senates 100 ( Grier & Munger,1993). There is the need for leaders to control the process of law making when decisions are tried to be made by 435 people. All top leadership positions are chosen by the political parties. The Minority leader serves as the opposition party floor leader, and forms the counterpart to the Leader of the Majority. The minority leader is usually on the ballot, during the House convening, for the Speaker (Theriault, 2006). The party of the Minority leader may control the house, and re-election of all party officers takes place to their seats. The party’s top choice for the speaker for the subsequent House is then the leader of the Minority. The leader of the Minority and the Majority leader usually meets with the Speaker to have discussions over controversial issues agreement. The party leaders have been assigned several responsibilities by the rules of the house. From the institutional perspective, for example, the minority leader has been granted the right to give a motion to recommit with orders. The minority leader may return a motion back to the committee for re-evaluation. The suggestion may not have been debated on well, this requires for further considerations which is usually handled by the minority leader. The selection of the Inspector General is a role of the Minority leader, together with the Speaker and the Majority Leader as required by the law. The three parties are therefore engaged in maximum consultation. The Minority leader therefore discusses with the party members and carries the party decision to recommendations with the Speaker and the Majority Leader (McAllister, 2007). On placing the legislation on Corrections Calendar, the law requires the Speaker to discuss with the Minority Leader. The speaker after discussions will place hardly targeted bills and bipartisan made to tackle particular problems with federal regulations, rules, court decisions and statutory laws. There are also the duties of providing appointments to people of various federal entities. The law requires that through appropriate entities, the leader of the minority in discussions with the Speaker shall come up with a drug trying system in the house. The law requires that in the resolutions referred to as freedom questions by the Minority or Majority leader shall have priority to all other questions apart from motions to suspend. The rule further prefers minority leader with the role of splitting up of debate time to these resolutions (Aldrich & Rohde, 2000). The law also requires for report of supervision plans together with any recommendations of the eminence committee or those projected by house leaders to make sure committees’ supervision plans are synchronized effectively. This statement is done in the house after the consultation of the minority leader, the speaker, the leader of the majority and Government Development Policy. The Minority leader together with the speaker shall also choose 10 members each, from his respective party at the opening of the House of Representatives (Cox & McCubbins, 2007). These members are not committee members on standards of Executive Conduct. These members will be there to serve on during the House meetings, as committee’s undercover subcommittees. The law requires the minority leader together with the speaker to be committee select ex officio members but not expected to have votes in the committee select. They shall not also be included in quorum willpower purposes. Each leader is also allowed to give his leadership staff member to help him with duties of ex officio. Other institutions roles are played by the party leaders such as designation of three members by the majority and Minority leaders to provide as objectors of Private Calendar. The process of House reconvention in accordance with the normal short-term concomitant suspension resolutions, the leaders are usually consulted (Mouritzen & Svara, 2002). The party leaders are also occupied with the performance of the party roles. The floor leader of the party, together with other party leaders is engaged in the formulation of party strategy and programs. He has the influence in favoring the legislation projected by his party and rejecting those of other parties that negatively affects his own party. He forms an instrument in devising and realization of the strategy of his party on the floor in accordance to opposing or promoting legislation. He is always informed of the governmental business status and as to the party’s response respecting specific legislation under consideration. Such information is got from contact of floor leader with his party members helping the house committee and also whips party organization members (Smith,2007). Minority leader provides campaign aid. They are normally antagonistic and active campaigners for challengers and enthusiast incumbents. A good example is through the assistance in employing qualified candidates; the form leadership PACs to raise funds and issue them to other party’s house candidates. They try to convince member colleagues to avoid retiring or move to other offices as to protect the number of open seats required by the party to defend (Jones, Saiegh, Spiller & Tommasi, 2002). They are involved in the organization of their campaign activities with public party campaign and the House committees. They also encourage group from outside to back up their candidates. They are also involved in travelling all over the country to speak on the party candidate behalf. They contribute to the party’s movement financial by the encouragement of current individuals to provide significant financial assistance to the campaign committee of the party. The leader of the minority in other party colleagues’ consultation employs a range of tactical options to advance goals of the minority party. The selected option depends on various circumstances like visibility, issue significance and extent of consistency in the party of the majority. For example, the party of the majority riven by inside rebellion, as that of early 1900s when ordinary republicans and progressives were at loggerheads, giving the minority leader with large chances for precedence achievements, than if the party of the majority showed high level of party solidity (Müller,2000) . Minority leader always targets making agenda of ideas that is electorally striking and proposals bringing together house members. This appeals to and energizes middle electoral supporters together with sway and independent voters. The minority leader is usually restricted in the setting of the schedule of the house but still has opportunities in coming up with priorities of the minorities. He may threaten to use or employ free petitions so as to bring priorities of the minorities to the floor. Minority leader may attract majority supporters through the collection of 218 signatures on discharge petition (Miller & Overby, 2010) He may therefore have the ability to influence minority initiatives to the floor over the majority leadership opposition. The leader of the minorities may get into various activities making public the priorities of their parties challenging their opposition. They ensure partisan individuals are sent optional press release packets to ensure party individuals are kept on message (Jones, 2005). They help in the association in districts of their members the town meetings to expose specific priorities or the agenda of the party. They sponsor retreats of the party to talk about certain issues and involved in evaluation of the public image of the party. The party leaders are also involved in the formation of subject teams for crafting party messages that are raised throughout the house periods. There is also the carrying out of the surveys of party individuals to distinguish their strategy preferences. They also make websites to show and allocate images of the party and issues to users. They are involved in the organization of duty forces for party programs formulation and strategies progress for programs announcement to the public (Herrnson, 2009). Performance of roles by both the majority and party leaders is always important in the House of Representatives. However, these two party leaders sometimes forget about role performance and concentrates in the favoring of ones own party. For instance, the minority party usually has minimum institutional powers in the House of Representative. The majority party takes the advantage of this small numerical number taking control of the committee and actions on the floor. The minority party hence lacks power to prevent the proposal of the majority party. The minority party members may decide no but the actual power lies in the development of speeches, press release issuance, and proletariats opposition inspiring proposals of the majority party (Geer, Schiller & Segal,2014). Party leadership in the House of Representatives in some situation sometimes becomes unnecessary. For instance, the Majority party leader is usually involved in the determination of members to go on fact-realization trips overseas. On the congressional committee, the majority always occupies three-fourths of the budget and will take three times total staff as compared to the minority, this might bring traumatic shifts in party control for those abruptly in the minority. Another situation is the control of the legislative agenda by the majority leader. It decides on both issues to be taken into consideration and they way they are suppose to be debated. He or she decides on the amendments and the way of handling matter in the House floor. The majority may therefore decide to prevent the amendments brought forward by the minority party and favors the majority. They way the two parties’ treats each other in the floor is important in setting the House atmosphere. Each side is usually fighting towards favoring his or her party focusing to win next election rather than coming up with a new legislation. For this to change there is therefore the need for the two party leaders to change on their attitudes (Hasecke, E. B., & Mycoff, 2007). There was the need the need to strengthen individuals’ role in the parliament. This therefore led to the bringing in of party discipline that was believed to contribute to good governance. There are various ways by which party discipline leads to good governance. The disciplined political parties make sure that government is blamed for some policies outcomes. It also ensures constituents interest representation in national policies. It also provides protection to individual parliament members from different interest groups pressure. The existence of party discipline is connected to the principle of government that is responsible since one of the equipment to hold government accountability to policy outcomes is by rigid party discipline. The maintenance of party discipline in the House of Representatives is carried out by the Majority and Minority Whip. The Whip leaders are usually the assistant to the Minority and Majority leaders. They are involved in the persuasion in the representatives of their parties to support the policies of the party. Party discipline is however, not specifically strict in chamber with the members running for reelection after every two years, and who hence decide to search for support in electoral Districts belonging to them than from their party leadership (Dewhirst & Rausch,2007). Party discipline is an important aspect playing a major role in the way of carrying out business in the House of Representative. There is need of having some discipline due to the sum of house members that exists. Time limits are usually placed on house members during speaking. In order for continuity and order maintenance in the House various positions at lower levels have been formed. There exist leaders of the floor representing their parties and whip leaders who are involved in the maintenance of party unity. The party leaders are the major party voice as well as involved in the formation of strategies (Van Biezen,2005). They are usually involved in the determination of the time for bills submission and approval. The Whips encourage the party through establishment of who to speak on the floor and who to provide time to other members of the party. Whips also encourage the members of the party to be present at floor debates or miss. Other functions involve opposition House members’ interference to sidetrack them from business that may be taking place. Encouragement of party discipline on the floor is encouraged by the Whip leader. A member who is not adhering to the party discipline may tend to have lost interest in the party. Such member may be prevented for running for the subsequent election with the party’s support. This provides one of the ways that makes a member to be strong in the party as he or she is promised of support. An MP may also pass a bill in the favor of his or her constituency. For the support of this bill a member must adhere to the party discipline and will be assured of receiving the Whip support on the bill. The strong party members who are usually on the front line in fighting for the party usually have strong adherence to party discipline. Such members are usually promoted to high ranks by the party (Ames,2002). The Majority in the House of Representatives is not enough to allow the dominance of the House by the government. The majority should be cohesive with the government being confidence of the supporters sticking together. Virtually all MPs being the members of the party are subjected to the party whip. The MPs usually receive instructions when an important vote is due to be carried out. This comes in the form of one-line whip in case of a less important issue, two-line whip for a very important issue, and three-line whip for a crucial issue. A vote with no instruction is a free vote. MPs ignoring the three-line whip are at a risk of retribution from their own party. For instance, the November 1994 incidence in Britain, during the financial Britain’s contribution to the EU (Lippert,2001) , where nine Conservative MPs led to the withdrawal of Whip after they did not participate in the confidence vote. When the Whip is withdrawn, it leads to the effective ostracization of MPs from the party. They are therefore not expected to vote in the elections of the party nor provide representation to the party on parliamentary committees. Parties are usually involved in the candidates’ nomination control during elections, campaign organization, campaign financing, policy provision and commanding the loyalty of voter. MPs are therefore aware of their electoral success is majorly due to their party and not their own candidature. As a result, when required to vote for party line, MPs often do so, being aware of party Whip withdrawal is like a threat of candidate deselection in the subsequent election. In comparison, a weak governing roles and electoral of American political parties, mean the weakness of party discipline in the House. It is therefore difficult to push legislation through House and also executive dominating the House. The strength of the party whips means the certainty of party discipline in the parliament and government usually depend on their supporters to vote for them (Williams, 1998). Although, people usually vote to the party they feel can represent their needs well, this does not apply to all countries worldwide. Free votes allowance in the House of Representatives may result in parliament members representing different pressure groups interests and not their components. Party discipline usually provides protection to each parliament member from different interests group influence. Disciplined political parties ensure responsible and representative governance in the country (Ames, 2002). Party discipline is involved in the restriction of initiative of representatives, but it tends to give an intelligible and more coherent set of policies. Local politics often comes into contest popularity or name recognition due to the individual acts of councilors as trustees of delegates but rarely as identifiable or cohesive groups (Dickerson, Flanagan & Oneill, 2009). The party discipline is therefore critical in the governing of the country as it plays a major role on individuals’ decision in the House of Representatives.The responsible government principle in the governance parliamentary system requires majority parliament members’ confidence from the government. Therefore the government legitimacy is derived through responsible government principle. Party discipline gives the government the chance to have support majority in the House of Representatives to allow for sustenance of power and do the elected mandate. There is therefore the need to have line of division between opposition party and government party so as to allow the citizens to see who takes responsibilities of particular policies and whether to reject the recent government or not in the subsequent parliamentary elections. Through the process of elections citizens allows party that won elections to rule and have judicious time for agenda operations? In this case, governance form that is responsible is well preserved with discipline political parties? Party discipline allows for clear division line existence between party in power and opposition party (Figueiredo & Limongi, 2000). In my conclusion, I agree with the existence of party leaders in the House of Representative to be a crucial thing. From the discussion, it has therefore come to my realization that the party leaders play a major role of the organization of the party in general. Party discipline has also proved to be significance in the House of Representatives. Order maintenance in the House of Representatives requires high level of party discipline. However, there have come some situations that have also proved not fit for the party leaders in the House of Representatives. However, the importance of party leaders outweighs the disadvantages. BIBLIOGRAPHY ALDRICH, J. H., & ROHDE, D. W. (2000). The consequences of party organization in the House: The role of the majority and minority parties in conditional party government. In Polarized politics: Congress and the president in a partisan era (pp. 31-72). AMES, B. (2002). Party discipline in the Chamber of Deputies. Legislative Politics in Latin America, 185-221. COX, G. W., & MCCUBBINS, M. D. (2005). Setting the agenda: Responsible party government in the US House of Representatives. Cambridge University Press. COX, G. W., & MCCUBBINS, M. D. (2007). Legislative leviathan: Party government in the House. Cambridge University Press. DEWHIRST, R. E., & RAUSCH, J. D. (2007). Encyclopedia of the United States Congress. New York, Facts On File. Page 263. DICKERSON, M. O., FLANAGAN, T., & ONEILL, B. (2009). An introduction to government and politics: a conceptual approach. Toronto, Nelson Education. Page 441. FIGUEIREDO, A. C., & LIMONGI, F. (2000). Presidential power, legislative organization, and party behavior in Brazil. Comparative Politics, 151-170. GEER, J. G., SCHILLER, W. J., & SEGAL, J. A. (2014). Gateways to democracy: an introduction to American government. Boston, MA, Wadsworth/Cengage Learning. Page 415. GRIER, K. B., & MUNGER, M. C. (1993). Comparing interest group PAC contributions to House and Senate incumbents, 1980–1986. The Journal of Politics, 55(03), 615-643. HASECKE, E. B., & MYCOFF, J. D. (2007). Party Loyalty and Legislative Success Are Loyal Majority Party Members More Successful in the US House of Representatives?. Political Research Quarterly, 60(4), 607-617. HERRNSON, P. S. (2009). The roles of party organizations, party-connected committees, and party allies in elections. The Journal of Politics, 71(04), 1207-1224. JONES, M. P., SAIEGH, S., SPILLER, P. T., & TOMMASI, M. (2002). Amateur Legislators— Professional Politicians: The Consequences of Party-Centered Electoral Rules in a Federal System. American Journal of Political Science, 656-669. JONES, M. P. (2005, February). The role of parties and party systems in the policymaking process.In Inter-American Development Bank Workshop on State Reform, Public Policies and Processes, Washington, DC. LIPPERT, B. (ED.). (2001). Britain, Germany, and EU enlargement: partners or competitors?. A&C Black. MCALLISTER, I. (2007). The personalization of politics. The Oxford handbook of political behavior, 571-588. MOURITZEN, P. E., & SVARA, J. H. (2002). Leadership at the Apex: Politicians and administrators in Western local governments. University of Pittsburgh Pre. MÜLLER, W. C. (2000). Political parties in parliamentary democracies: Making delegation and accountability work. European journal of political research, 37(3), 309-333. MILLER, S. M., & OVERBY, L. (2010). Parties, preferences, and petitions: Discharge behavior in the modern house. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 35(2), 187-209. ROHDE, D. W. (2010). Parties and leaders in the postreform House. University of Chicago Press. SMITH, S. S. (2007). Party influence in congress. Cambridge University Press. Page 17. THERIAULT, S. M. (2006). Party Polarization in the US Congress Member Replacement and Member Adaptation. Party Politics, 12(4), 483-503. WILLIAMS, A. (1998). UK government & politics. Oxford, Heinemann. Page 94 VAN BIEZEN, I. (2005). On the theory and practice of party formation and adaptation in new democracies. European Journal of Political Research, 44(1), 147-174. Read More