The Uk Parliament Is Increasingly Dominated By The Executive

�Parliament is increasingly dominated by the executive’. Discuss [16]

The word parliament derives from a word loosely translated as �to talk’ or �to deliberate’. The UK Parliament consists officially of the two Houses of Parliament: the Lords and the Commons and the monarch, which by convention, delegates his or her authority to a group of ministers known as the executive. The role of parliament is mainly to legislate and to govern the United Kingdom through elected representatives. However the executive has a special role over the legislatures and it has been argued that the UK Parliament has become increasingly dominated by the executive.

The executive is made up of the Prime Minister (PM) acting in place on the monarch and a group of ministers known as the PMs Cabinet. All cabinet members (including the PM) are members’ of the Privy Council and must also be members of the Commons or the Lord’s, by convention most being from the Commons. Therefore the executive is borne out of the legislature and directly accountable to it. The executive has many functions, such as the power of patronage which is vested in the PM, the setting of the agenda for government and the prioritising of legislation. The close union between the executive and the legislature is prima facie, a potential for abuse as liberal democratic theory calls for a separation between powers.

The executive influences the legislatures in several ways. Firstly, the executive will contain the government party, i.e. the party with the majority in the lower house. Because the prime minister and executive (generally speaking) are leaders of the largest party in the house, it is likely that any legislation pursued by the executive in Britain will be passed. This happens due to the party system in Britain. British political parties produce a platform or manifesto which all members of the party are expected to agree with, if not then they should not be representing the party. Therefore if the leaders of the party expect support for a bill, the party is expected to vote for it. Having a party majority in the lower house gives the executive considerable scope to interfere with the workings of the legislature. Benemy (1965) states that as the monarch once dominated parliament and ruled as almost a tyrannical figure, this position has, although weakened, been shaped into the form of an “elected monarch” вЂ" the Prime Minister. Lord Hailsham, the Lord Chancellor during the 79-87 government explains the executive domination in the legislature as an “elective dictatorship”. However the executive has a varying hold over the legislature depending on strength in the lower house.

There are however, checks and balances to ensure that the system works. The lower house may be considerably dominated by the executive but the same is not true with the upper house, the House of Lords. Most of those in the Lords have been appointed to it because they have done considerably well in their past political career, have little worry about being dismissed and so tend to vote by conviction. The Prime Minister could dismiss appointed Lords but doing so would cause uproar and would not be good for the image of the Prime Minister. Other Lords are hereditary peers or life peers which are MPs simply because of their lineage and therefore without any political loyalty, tend to vote on conscience. In this way, the House of Lords has been termed the �conscience of the state’. The Lords can refuse to pass legislation brought to them except on monetary issues and although they cannot scrap the legislation altogether, they can hold it up for a year.

The executive sets the agenda for government in the cabinet. This is outlined in the monarch’s speech and addresses the areas which the government will focus on. Therefore the agenda set by the cabinet can dominate the legislative work of the two houses and leave less room for consideration contrary to said agenda. The government party will ensure that it can pass legislation if all members are present and vote for the position of the government. This is done using a part whip system. If a member decides to vote against the party, sanctions can be imposed and in a serious situation when a member rebels, the PM can dismiss or appoint the member to a different position. Therefore the PM can ensure that the executive’s priorities and views are expressed in the legislatures.

However the executive’s control in this regard is not total. There have been headline grabbing notices of member’s rebelling against the government position and resigning their position. For example Robin Cook, then leader of the Commons and labour MP resigned his post due to the government’s position on Iraq. More recently in March 2008, Brown’s government saw rebellion and the opposition saw resignations over the issue of the failure to implement a promised referendum on a new EU reform treaty. As we can see the executive’s dominance of the members of the legislature is not total but rebellions are a rarity.

The power of the PM to appoint cabinet ministers allows him or her to shape policy and therefore legislation. The Prime Minister appoints the speaker of the house and the Lord Chancellor among others. In this way, the PM and appointees of the executive can have considerable sway over the legislature. The Lord Chancellor serves as a leading figure in the House of Lords but also chairs and attends executive meetings.