Public Patronage in Britain - Essay Example

? PUBLIC PATRONAGE IN BRITAIN Public patronage in Britain Patronage is the act of supporting, encouraging, aiding, and conferring privilege by an organization or individual to another (Weir & Beetham 1999, pg 101). In modern day Britain, many forms of patronage exist in its institutions. This paper will discuss the political implications and cultural perspectives in appointment of cabinet secretaries and management of political parties. In Britain, the appointment of cabinet secretaries is the duty of the Prime Minister immediately after an election. The appointments are made from serving members of parliament. In British politics, there is no determined number of cabinet positions. The prime minister can create new posts or combine cabinet positions. In Britain, cabinet secretaries are not experts in their field, but are supported by expert advisors (Weir & Beetham 1999, pg 104). This model of vesting the powers of hiring and firing of cabinet secretaries on the Prime Minister alone, results into political patronage, where the prime minister can use the opportunity to serve personal or party agendas. The Prime Minister can use this opportunity to appoint friends into the cabinet and at the same time fire opponents who are not supportive of his policies. This kind of patronage has political implications where the ability to dissent is greatly reduced and cabinet secretaries serve with fear of not disappointing the Prime Minister. This will result in appointment of sycophants into the cabinet other than people who can oppose the prime minister on critical issues. Another form of patronage is the ability of the Prime Minister to determine the agendas of cabinet meetings (Weir & Beetham 1999, pg 73). This opportunity can used to table only agendas that are less controversial while those that are sensitive are handled by the “kitchen cabinet.” The political implication is that the running of the government becomes a one-man affair and this has the consequences of reducing the democratic participation of independent minded members of parliament in running the government. Another form of modern patronage in Britain is the management of political parties. There exist many political parties in Britain, but Conservative and Labor parties have exercised dominance of British politics. Most political parties are made insignificant due to the existence of “first past the post” electoral system during an election. This system allows the dominance one party while the other one is rendered insignificant. The party, which wins an election, can use this chance to exercise patronage by determining all the affairs of the nation while the input of other political parties is ignored. This scenario was witnessed during the dominance of the Conservatives from 1979 to 1997, and the dominance of Labor Party from 1997 to 2009. During these eras, one party dominated parliament while the others remained largely out of the picture. This form of electoral system has the political implication of reducing the country into a one party state although Britain is a multi-party state. The period of one party status can lead to abuse of office by this party because it lacks the checks and balances that are afforded by a parliament that contains representatives of political parties. This is compounded by the powers conferred to the prime minister of appointing the cabinet secretaries, and the country becomes more of an autocracy as witnessed during the reign of Margaret Thatcher, who was famously referred to as the” iron lady” (Savoie 1994, pg 85). The political patronage that results from this system is a threat to democracy, which fosters inclusiveness. Cultural perspectives of appointments cabinet secretaries’ patronage in Britain The UK appointments to civic organization are made by applying either statutory or prerogative authorities almost often wholly at the command of politicians, liable to parliament for their actions. Culturally, patronage destroys the society’s normal existence of hierarchy of power and community tasks. This is because such appointments are depended on rots and merits of the democratic step. In political perspective, patronage offer authority to patrons and banned others from participating in any political activity. Culturally, patronage was meant to excel on secrecy since the step is disgraceful to those leaders that even its significant interests are reluctant to validate every decision. Each extension of patronage authority is a progress to centralization of power, a step closer to totalitarian regime. Then last patronage nation was communist Russia, for which any job, every location at the university, each home, every favor was given out to the whim of party leaders (Guan, 1997, p169) Loyalty to political parties and cabinet appointments were two mutual aspects that go hand-in-hand. Nonetheless, patronage indicates no symptoms of fading in relation to these two issues. For instance, traditions and cultures were meant to be passed down from one generation to the next. Culturally, there should be a form of leadership, but the leaders have to care for the needs of everyone. In Britain, this is not the case, as every appointment comes with a price. Since the growth of quango patronage, there have been a number of executives charged with management of near a third of entire government cost centrally. The Prime Minister has remarkable authority against several appointments. The political parties in Britain have a lot of influence once one is in power where the elected Chief Whip controls who gets what job (Boston et al., 1996, p. 56). One of the main common themes in cultural ethics is equality, defined this way by Aristotle: “fairness must be considered on equal terms with no favors. Cronyism, favoritism, and nepotism each hinder the equity existing in cultural moments; this is because it offers undue merit to a person who does not suitably merit the appointment. Chapman (1998, p 5) stated that culturally, such issues dealing with cronyism, favoritism, and nepotism in addition degrades the basic good. Political parties and various civil appointments need strict measures to adjust the culture that exist in Britain since the formation of political parties. Usually, in cultural terms it is not good for a person to be appointed due to links instead of what credentials they have, because the services such a person will offer to the public can be inferior. Issues of competencies in cultural perspectives are considered keenly in order to create a healthy society where everyone is proud to be associated with the form of government in place. In fact, different communities have been varying on the appointments of family and friends to high-level ranks. Guan (1997, p.175) indicated that the society and the government, nevertheless, need to know that such practices and selections criteria results to appearance of unfairness. Furthermore, from both cultural and political perspective on international level, the appearance of favoritism abates morale within the government service, not illustrating public faith in the accountability of government. References Boston, J., Martin, J., Pallot, J. and Walsh, P. (1996), Public management: The New Zealand model. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapman, R. (1998).‘Accountability in civil service recruitment’, Public Policy and Administration, 13, 3: 1-7. Guan, L. (1997) ‘Sustaining excellence in government: The Singapore experience’, Public Administration and Development, 17: 167-174. Savoie, D, 1994, Thatcher, Reagan, Mulroney: In Search of a New Bureaucracy. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Weir, S.& Beetham, D, 1999, Political Power and Democratic Control in Britain: The Democratic Audit of the United Kingdom, London: Routledge. Read More