Role of Parliament in the British Government - Essay Example

Role of Parliament in the British Government Introduction The British system of governance is characterized by three arms. There is autonomy in the mandate and power that is bestowed on the three by the supreme law referred to as the constitution. The three arms work hand in hand to ensure that the matters of state are well taken care of. The arms are the legislature also referred to as parliament, the executive as well as the judiciary. Each of these branches has specific roles to play. Whereas the legislature and the judiciary are broadly charged with the responsibility of making laws, interpreting and enforcing them, the executive mainly undertakes policy decisions and sees to it that they are enforced. The executive is composed of the main core of people who ultimately make decisions that broadly influence the daily lives of Britons. It is therefore paramount that such authority has checks and balances from the other arms so that the power may not be abused. The main components of the executive are primarily the prime minister, the cabinet and the civil service. These are the people who are closest to the common citizens and who are considered by the lay man as the ones who are responsible for determining the general welfare of the country as a whole. However, in the British system of government, much unlike in presidential or federal systems evident elsewhere in the world, there is not much separation of power. This is because, while ideally the cabinet is grouped as being in the executive, it is composed of legislators from the law making arm of the government. The cabinet therefore has an influence on the laws that are to be passed in parliament. This paper will seek to determine whether parliament in Britain is effective in providing a useful and effective role in the matters of the government and to what extent they do this. Considering that there is no distinct separation of powers in the British system of governance as in other democracies in the world, it is possible for the executive to influence parliamentary activities and vice versa. Therefore, it is paramount to determine the extent of this influence in the present day context in order to draw relevant conclusions. Most members of the cabinet of Britain sit in the House of Commons (Campbell & Peters 1988, p. 168). This house has been previously criticized for its compositions with a large number of sitting representatives hailing from a single party. This means that the decisions that may be arrived at in many cases may not be representative of the professional opinion of those undertaking the decision but may be reflective of a stance taken by the party rather than the individual representatives. The majority of those in the House of Commons who may be hailing from the same party are also bound to be supportive of the executive’s decisions which may not be in the best interest of democracy. This kind of trend that is reflective of a majority of representatives following the same course and having the same characteristics and backgrounds reflects a very unhealthy trend in the course of representatives who are in the legislature providing checks and balances to the executive. Discussion In the recent past, there has been an increase in the attempts by the executive to increase controls of measures of parliament. The effects have been that parliament has been compelled to support the decisions that the executive makes. The result has been a dominance of parliament by the executive that has seen the latter’s power wane. The perception among policy makers, other experts and the public in general has been that the executive has become the decision maker in parliament. Already, this depicts that something is wrong since parliament cannot effectively put checks and controls on the executive while the executive is dominating decision making (Knight 2010, p. 331). Recognition is given to the fact that parliament in Britain does not consist of a single house. Rather, it is constituent of two with the House of Commons having already been mentioned. The House of Lords is also encompassed in parliamentary system. However, its composition, much unlike that of the House of Commons is much more dynamic and therefore is not overly subject to the influence of the executive. There are fewer supporter deals in the House of Lords which means that there are fewer party loyalties and thus this house can defy the executive without much hesitance. Since its members of late do not form a large part of the executive, they are much less threatened with the loss of position contrary to those in the House of Commons with executive positions. In Britain, the highest executive authority is exercised by the queen. Currently, Queen Elizabeth II is the highest executive authority via Her Majesty’s Government in conjunction with other devolved authorities in the nation. As the nation is primarily a monarch, the executive power is transferred to the prime minister who is a member of the House of Commons to exercise the authority on behalf of the queen. The constitution intended that the prime minister form the government in conjunction with members of this house. Practically though, the prime minister is the leader of the party that has the largest number of seats in the House of Commons. When no leader has the required majority to form the government, the leader who has the simplest majority is given the opportunity to form the government as a coalition with whoever consents. Consequently, the prime minister will choose the ministers from those in the coalition to act as the heads of the various departments in government. Commonly, the most senior 20 ministers make up the cabinet whereas about 100 ministers are chosen. It therefore follows that the government is comprised of members of the House of Commons or the peers in the House of Lords. In theory, the government in Britain is run by members of the houses of parliament. Therefore, the decisions that arise from the government are reflective of those that are in parliament. This lack of a clear separation of powers make it very complicated to decipher the exact influence and effectiveness of parliament in Britain’s government. In the last century, there has been dominance by two particular parties in this multiparty system of governance. The conservative and labour parties have been the most dominant in the politics of Britain that they are almost synonymous with the British government. However, there has been an increase in the influence that is seen from other parties and independents. There are a number of factors that can be associated with this trend. The global economic crisis notwithstanding, there has been the widening gap between the rich and the poor, the increased rate of unemployment and the ongoing war on terror both in Afghanistan and Iraq (Arrighi et al. 1999, p. 121). The court of public opinion seems to attribute all these failures to the governance in Britain today. Many people are of the opinion that the country is increasingly living in the shadows of its former colony the United States. This is because the fates of both countries seem to be jointed with one negative effect in one country being reflected in the other. However, while the government is continually being blamed for the short comings, it is possible to blame parliament. The government is comprised of the members of parliament. Without a doubt, when government is being blamed, criticism for parliament should not be that farfetched. Parliament is not only comprised of those that form the government; far from it, it is comprised of a large number of individuals drawn from many political backgrounds. As of 2010, there were 650 constituencies meaning that the same number of members was present in the House of Commons. All of the members apart from one were members of registered political parties. It is therefore possible for parliament to be in a position to provide checks and balances for the government just by the sheer difference in numbers. Currently however and with thanks to the First Past the Post electoral system, only one party can have a majority in the House of Commons (Mannin 2010, p. 7). It is also the reason why the British system is primarily a two-party system. This means that although a small number of members of the houses are comprised in the government, there is a larger number that is from the same party but not in the government. This presents a problem when considering the role of parliament as a source of checks and balances. Ultimately, party loyalty will compel those in the same party to act similarly in different situations. Thus, when government makes a decision, not only is it supported by the members of parliament that form it but also by those of the same party. Thus, the divergent position does not receive support. This is not healthy in a society that is democratic in nature. At the least, divergent positions are necessary in political situations so that the majority may have their way while the minority have their say. In rarer circumstances when no political party gets an outright majority, the person whom the monarch asks to form the government will require being in a coalition. However, there is not much difference from the scenario where one party with the majority forms the government. This is because the parties that form the government will ultimately work like a single party and will vote on the same motions and endorse similar decisions. Historically, such an action was required during times of emergencies like war. The scenario played out in the appointment of Winston Churchill to head the government in 1940 during World War II. Recently, the same scenario played out with the current Prime Minister David Cameron having assumed the mantle after a coalition gave him the majority that was desired. This shows that parliament has the power to dictate matters to government like its formation after an impasse. Whenever there is a matter that the government is unable to decide on its own, parliament has previously been involved in the decision to solve that problem. Such a government that is formed from extraordinary circumstances gets the first vote of confidence from the House of Commons during the Speech from the Throne which is a legislative programme that the new government proposes. The house of lords is another parliamentary component. It has largely been hereditary with life peers and Lords Spiritual. The aristocratic chamber has however been the subject of extensive reforms most recent being the House of Lords Act 1999. There are very two distinct member types comprised in the house. There are those who are referred to as Lords Temporal and Lords Spiritual. The Lords Temporal are usually appointed members who do not have the right of heredity to their descendants (Watts 2007, p. 105). There are also ninety two other members who have the right for heredity for their descendants. They are elected by and from those holders of titles that previously constituted and gave seats to the house. There are twenty-six Lords Spiritual who are drawn from the Church of England which consists of the leaders of Five Ancient Sees of Canterbury, Durham, London, Winchester and York. Additionally, 21 most senior bishops are also considered in the house. The major purpose of the House of Lords is mostly the review of legislation that has already been proposed by the House of Commons. This means that the house has the power to either propose amendments to the proposals or to simply veto a certain motion to be suspended. Furthermore, the house has the power to ensure that certain legislation is delayed if for some reason they do not agree with it in twelve months. The above discussion insinuates that the House of Lords does have the power to veto certain legislation that may be passed by the House of Commons and by large by the government. This means that when the house deems it fit, it may compel the government to act in a certain way in order to avoid a particular consequence. However, with this power, there is a limitation on when it can be used. Mostly, the veto power comes in handy during the debate on money bills. Moreover, it can be exercised in times of major manifesto promises. Both parliamentary acts of 1911 and 1949 clearly indicate when the vetoes can or cannot be exercised. The House of Lords is however curtailed from the use of vetoes in that they can be overturned by the House of Commons in a provision in parliamentary act of 1911 if they are persistently used. There is a trend whereby the government quickly acts on the recommendations that the house of lords proposes in order to avoid a clash. There could be negative publicity as well as a massive loss of time if the government could be seen as having a confrontation with the Lords. The House of Lords additionally has the power to veto any acts that may be seen as attempting to extend the life of parliament to a term that is longer than the five years proposed in parliament Act 1911. In the past, the Law Lords acted as the highest court of appeal in civil cases. This meant that traditionally, they have had the power to influence a myriad of decisions even on matters that were clearly judicial. However, in 2009, the House of Lords ceased to be the highest appellant court and was in turn replaced by the Supreme Court. Conclusion The system of governance in Britain though comprising of three arms does not have a clear separation of powers as other systems. This means that while the legislature is clearly defined as the body that makes laws, it is also the body that forms the government in Britain. Although the government is run by the prime minister, the sovereign authority of the state is vested in the monarch. This system of governance gives the queen a lot of authority to veto many decisions including dissolving the house and removing the prime minister among others. That can only happen in extreme cases meaning that in the everyday running of British affairs, parliament comprising of both the House of Commons and House of Lords among others devolved legislatures still have a vital role to play in the running of the state. As the global economy faces massive problems, it is paramount that parliament take on the major role in ensuring that matters of the government are well run. Presently, there is an avalanche of problems facing Britons and it should be the government and parliament to step up and alleviate the problems. These powers to veto and to influence the decisions of the government through legislation make the house of lords the last legislative process that the public could rely on to ensure that the government lives up to its promises and that excesses and abuses of power are checked References Arrighi, G. et al. 1999. Chaos and governance in the modern world system. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis Campbell, C. & Peters, G. 1988. Organizing Governance, Governing Organizations. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh Knight, J. 2010. British Politics for Dummies. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester Mannin, M. 2010. British government and politics: balancing Europeanization and independence. Rowan &Littlefield Publishing Group Inc., Lanham, Maryland Watts, D. 2007. A glossary of UK government and politics. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh Read More