British Prime-Minister Becoming Presidential
Essay Preview: British Prime-Minister Becoming Presidential
Report this essay
The following paper will be focusing on and analysing the main ways in which the Prime Minister is becoming more “Presidential”. There will be key interest into what are the relative implications of this change for democracy in Britain shall be in the near future, as well as any other factors of influence for this change. The extent of analysis will range from the initial presidential principles set forth by a selected government, (Which shall take the form of the USA, within this paper), including its successes and failures. Following this will be the investigation into the parliamentary principles set out within the Westminster system, of Great Britain. The essay will then concluded as to whether or not one can link the British Prime Minister into becoming more presidential.
Presidential Principles
This essay will be considering the President of the United States of America, as the case study in explaining the characteristics and rules governing the governmental workings within a presidential system. This is due to the fact that the president of the USA, is often referred to as being the “most powerful man on the planet” (Kesselman & Krieger, 2009:122). . The U.S. represents the strongest form of presidentialism, in the sense that the powers of the executive and legislative branches are separate, and legislatures (national and state) often have significant powers. Hence, serves perfect example for analysis.
To begin, one must first gain knowledge of the presidential system itself, before a comparison can begin. Hence, this paper will start of at the electoral process of the President. In a presidential system, the President (who is the chief executive as well as the symbolic head of government) is chosen by a separate election from that of the legislature. The President then appoints his or her cabinet of ministers (or “secretaries” in the case of America). These ministers are usually not simultaneously members of the legislature, although their appointment may require the advice and consent of the legislative branch. Because the senior officials of the executive branch are separately elected or appointed, the presidential political system is characterized by a separation of powers, wherein the executive and legislative branches are independent of one another. Presidents have greater control over their cabinet appointees who serve at the Presidents pleasure, and who are usually selected for reasons other than the extent of their congressional support. (Brinkley & Dyer, 2004).
In a presidential system, in line with the notion of a separation of powers, presidents and members of the legislature are separately elected for a given length of time. Presidents have no authority to remove members of the legislature. Premature removal of either legislative members or the President can only be initiated by a vote in the lower legislative chamber and under particular conditions. Thus, under normal circumstances, even if the political party that the President represents becomes a minority in either or both houses of the legislature, the President will remain in his position for the full term for which he was elected. (Kesselman & Krieger, 2009)
The presidential system and the parliamentary system each possess unique strengths and weaknesses. The first key difference mentioned from before between the two systems of government was the extent to which the powers of government are separated functionally between branches of government. In the presidential system, political and administrative powers are divided between the executive, legislative and judicial branches. This division of powers causes a lack of direct connection between the legislative and executive departments of the federal government. This lack of direct connection between the branches creates a lack of unity in action and execution rendering the American processes of government invisible and making the lines of responsibility indirect and covert. In a parliamentary system, Parliament is sovereign and executive authority (exercised by the Prime Minister and Cabinet) is derived from the legislature. This is beneficial because it means there is a direct connection between the legislative and executive departments. (Hess & Pfiffner, 2002).
Parliamentary System
The parliamentary system, unlike the American presidential system, is recognizable by a fusion of powers between the legislative and executive branches. The Prime Minister, who is the chief executive, may be elected to the legislature in the same way that all other members are elected. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party that wins the majority of votes to the legislature, or in some cases through an election held by the legislature. The Prime Minister appoints Cabinet Ministers. However, unlike in the presidential system, these members are typically themselves legislature members from the ruling party or coalition. Thus, in a parliamentary system, the constituency of the executive and legislature are the same. If the ruling party is voted out of legislature, the executive also changes. Continued cooperation between the executive and legislature is required for the government in a parliamentary system to survive and to be effective in carrying out its programs. (Hefferman, 2005)
The United Kingdom represents the strongest form of parliamentary. Hence the study of it for the analysis of this question at hand.
The Prime Minister, in a parliamentary system, can be removed from office in two ways. Even through elections happen every 5 year, the. However parliament can remove a Prime Minister almost immediately if they do not approve of his/her weekly address. Therefore making the Prime minister fully liable to answer to parliament. (MacNaughton, 1999).
The first form of removal is through a “no-confidence” motion, which calls for a vote in the legislature to demonstrate that the legislature no longer has confidence in the Prime Minister and his cabinet of Ministers. If the vote passes by a majority, the Executive, including the Prime Minister, is forced to step down. Since the Prime Minister and his cabinet of ministers are members of the legislature, this brings about new legislative elections. The term of the Prime Minister, therefore, is generally linked to that of the rest of the legislature. However, the Prime Minister can also be removed by his/her own party members, in a setting outside of the legislature. (MacNaughton, 1999).
For example, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was removed by party vote and replaced by John Major during the Conservative Party caucus in 1990. Such a removal, whereby the party decides to change its leader, does not force legislative