British Prime Minister Become Too Powerful - Essay Example

British Prime Minister Become Too Powerful Introduction In the British parliament, the prime minister is the most important person in the politics. Prime minister is in charge of appointing the cabinet and as well making the final decision on major issues pertaining the referendum. The prime minister in the British government takes the responsibility of driving the policies of the labor party before and after election time. Few individuals have believed that personality of the prime minister is as important as stated party policies. Many tend to view that the prime minister is too powerful in his work even when looking at his basic powers in the government. Prime minister is the party leader in the House of Commons because of rights accorded in selecting the cabinet, deciding agenda in cabinet meetings; hand out most of the departmental positions where he also chairs the parliamentary progress. The prime minister who is in the House of Commons has authorities to dismiss ministers from the house. He has power to direct and control policies for the government as the chief executive. The prime minister is ultimately accountable for policies and government decisions, he also oversees the civil service and other governmental agencies and appoints cabinet members and serves as the principal government member in the House of Commons. He or she heads the government, providing political leadership within the government cabinet system and the country at large. Its specific tasks include appointment and dismissal of government ministers, presiding over the cabinet and its committee (Dooley 172). It is also bound to set date of meetings and general elections and as well present the state in the international arena. According to Kevin Dooley (2009), the British prime minister is the most powerful voice in the British politics. The British prime minister is elected by the majority party in the House of Commons. The connection allows the British prime minister to have the ability to be actively engaged in the day-day policy-making and negotiation process that takes place in the House of Commons –a function that presidents are legally unable to perform. It has been seriously criticized that the position of the British prime minister is becoming too powerful. Mark Bennister (2012) Says that the story of the ages says, “the prime minister is becoming too powerful: the cabinet is being bypassed. Sofa government has arrived, this outrageous. The civil service is being bypassed, and something needs to be clear.” Michael Barber (2007 pp.348,) also says that the analysis is correct that the power of the prime minister is becoming too superior. “My argument is that the role of the prime minister has become more and more difficult …….and am arguing that the prime minister needs an effective machinery to deliver results.” Barber’s “effective machinery” included department of prime minister and cabinet modeled with experience incorporating the cabinet office. On the grounds of effectiveness and coherence, clarity will replace fudge, and blunt will become sharp, (Barber pp.328.2007). According to (Dooley 2014), the office of the prime minister has an immense amount of power at his or her disposal. It appears like to be that prime minister’s agenda will become a law. The only real check on this authority comes from the opposing party and it leader of the minority and their ability to skillfully debate with concrete reasons for their opposition to the appending bill. Despite the notion of an overly powerful prime minister, still the prime minister needs a greater intuitional capacity Barber (2007), Barber still is sufficiently cautious to spells out the need to for greater constraints. Rhodes (2010), on the other hand, says that journalists and political scientists are telling tales of a Blair presidency characterized by centralization; personalization and pluralisation. While we have been two competing concerning the development of centralized capacity of the prime minister in Britain have been less under spotlight in their accumulation of power resource at the center (Bennister 2007) Prime minister require structural support that is, of a bureaucratic and political nature. The growth of administration and policy capacity directly answerable to the prime minister has been evident under Blair and Howard (Mark Bennister 2007, p.91,). Research has shown that if one took a survey across intuitions could come up with importance of people. Critical issue for almost all prime ministers is how big their immediate circles are. People wrangle for power, it is small enough if these same people play it in the right manner they might have chance get close to the prime minister and reputation rise and fall like stock and shares on the stock exchange market. Many people believe that when they get the position close to the seat of the prime minister they could be close to the government on several matters. In further support of this research, John David Lees (2009) presidency has become more powerful. Responsibilities have augmented significantly, and it has developed powerful instruments in the office of the president. Some parties that operate at the state level have little national influence, whereas some parties that operate at the federal level have minimum national influence Dooley (2009).The role of the prime minister is best examines on how parties function and how the stated coalition helps to form a government. An American, James Madison says that, to a certain degree, the model is an exclusive of the council. It depicts a imperative feature of the parliamentary system. Scholars have tried to discuss the recent presidentialism on the prime minister’s, which is much of the executive by committee than the office of the president in the American system (Bennister 2012 p.92). British prime minister has always been trusted individuals. However, small groups of confidants, always attempt to foster relationship with the prime minister, though, they achieve limited success. The attempts aim at controlling the prime minister. Formal authority is said to be vested in ministries who make decisions on behalf of the government. Ministries should have typical statutory responsibility of making decisions and then it must in reality be theirs to make, not the prime ministers (Weller 2007) Ministers cannot do everything and delegate many other intra-executive responsibilities instead they are political actors. The prime minister holds a major policy initiative across the government. In the British government, minutes of the debate held reaches the prime minister only when complete and opinions solidified. It is not easy for the prime minister to realize connect with what occured in the various discussions. The prime ministers mandate is largely attributed to royal prerogatives .another important power of the British prime minister is that comes from the ability to assemble a strong team in the form of the cabinet. If, for example, if the prime ministers are driving the policy, perhaps with the ministers playing a secondary role, then the cabinet government is in decline because prime ministers are taking over the proper ministerial responsibility. The British executive has the mandate to pull together and integrate central government policies and acts as final arbiters of the conflict between different elements of the government machine (Weller 2007). In support of the argument, Patrick Moray Weller (2007) argues that in a proper system of the cabinet government, prime ministers manage the cabinet process to ensure that the system works smoothly, not direct policy. Patrick further said that, and it is not the prime minister’s responsibility to ensure that cabinet colleagues arrive at the unified decision if he or she is the protagonist of a particular line Many analysts have laid explanations and assumptions that the cabinet is a crucial forum but rather several forums in collaboration. The core executive approach argues that others stuffs and as well as other ministries may be crucial and that decisions may be effectively laid in a wide variety of networks (Patrick 2007 p.272). Cabinets in Britain meet once week and for one or two hours. Much of the discussions are taken on regular reports and parliamentary businesses. Prime minister in this case is loaded with tasks that consume most of his or her time. Therefore to reach this person it I even more difficult that requires appointments of now and then. In short, the prime ministers have most of the responsibilities to carry out. It was argued that prime ministers should be deprived power to the lower institution. Some time back it has been less accurate description on how exactly the role and influence of the prime minister. The prime minister is subject to the parties support and the ability to whip his majority of the House of Commons for laying the policies and legislation law. Prime ministers in the British government appear more superior and powerful due to the type of tasks they perform. They take responsibility of all matters that pertains the government and leadership at large. Cabinet officials in the British government serve as secretaries of a variety of policy initiatives and as the “hands-on” advisors to the Prime Ministers (Dooley 2009 p.174.)The cabinet is the supreme directing authority that integrates authorities with a vast variety of functions. It provides unity to the British systems of government. According to (Bennister 2012, p.99), the capacity to maintain a substantial private office has been a challenging feature of prime ministers in Australia. Sometimes many argues that particularly the prime minister has “overstepped the mark” meaning that he or she appears to be slightly ahead than other political leaders especially across other states. The prime minister goes past the moral boundaries is harder to cross than another world leader is why many are fighting to fragment the power of the prime minister to nothing absolutely. However, fragmentation should go to lower institutions like the parliament, European Union and the cabinet. It would significantly boost economic prosperity and interest in politics as well. It calls for collective responsibility to bind the nation together so that it can face the minister's correct measure that are meant to replenish the economy and improve lifestyle. The power of the prime ministers is extensive, and it includes the power to declare, power to dissolve the parliament, power over recall of parliament and can also make public appointment without close scruitiny.Such powers are unnecessary in the liberal democracy. Prime ministers have always been able to win; where they choose to exercise their authorities depending what they have gone for. “To ensure prime ministers do not always bypass their cabinet or only consult them after the fact. They pick and choose issues they want to direct and in some circumstances may decide to let the cabinet’s collective decision making run its source” (Patrick 2007, pp.272). The prime minister has to advise the cabinet to advise him ultimately, the prime minister is the one who says, “yes” or “no” would not be acceptable in other systems, even if prime ministers would like to think it is true (Weller 2007). According to (Weller, 207) Prime ministers accept the need for political support and coherent policy but appreciate the mix that is believed to change from time to time. However, the way prime ministers use cabinets to achieve these objectives will differ from person to person. The location of decision does not matter at all because the prime minister’s office can be as significant as any cabinet committee. (Weller, 2007) Pressure and complexity in the current government in Britain means that to some extent weekly meetings are not functional. Ministers seem not set timely and sophisticated policies. Therefore, the prime ministers choose to work with the principal player in and around those regular meeting. The essence of definitions that prime ministers need support and policy coherence and must be dedicated to working for the achievement. The sharing of power is the core element of the cabinet system. Policy areas are further segment. Some take budget out of hands of the cabinet and merely inform it of decisions. Conclusion Institutional analysis exhibits that the prime minister is the head of the government, providing leadership within the cabinet and the country at large. The prime minister is under responsibility of appointing and at the same time dismissing cabinet members. In the British politics, the prime minister is the most powerful voice. References Dooley, K., & Patten, J. (2009). Why politics matters: An introduction to political science. Bennister, M. (2012). Prime ministers in power: Political leadership in Britain and Australia. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Weller, P. (2007). Cabinet government in Australia, 1901-2006: Practice, principles, performance. Sydney: UNSW Press. Lees, J., & Maidment, R. (2012). American politics today. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Jones, B. (2014). Political issues in Britain today (4th ed.). Manchester: Manchester University Press ;. Kopstein, J. (2009). Comparative politics interests, identities, and institutions in a changing global order (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. Read More