Has the Role of the Prime Minister Become More Presidential Essay

Free Essay Database Online

Has the Role of the Prime Minister Become More Presidential Essay

AS Politics – Homework Has the function of the Prime Minister go more presidential? There is an statement that the Prime Minister dominates in the British Political system. The British traditional system has moved off from the “cabinet government” theoretical account to a “prime ministerial government” theoretical account. But there is a different inquiry refering about the function and importance of the Prime Minister. Does the function of the PM go more presidential? First. Prime Minister is the leader of his party in the House of Commons and the caput of the authorities. However. in fact. the Prime Minister has come to be. non lawfully the Head of State. the leader of the state. irrespective of party commitment. It means that in clip of trouble. exigency or crisis such as war or terrorist menaces. the state can unify behind its caput of authorities. Although the Head of State is held by the sovereign. but it is merely ceremonial.

The true power lies on the Prime Minister. It can be argued that there has been a long term seeing the premier curate of the twenty-four hours instead than the sovereign as national leader. Furthermore. the undoubted growing in the of import of foreign and military personal businesss has contributed to a presidential ‘feel’ for the office of the Prime Minister. When the Head of Government has to negociate with foreign powers. attend international conferences. negotiate pacts. behavior wars and run into visiting very important persons. he is bound to look presidential. In big conference he will be seen rubbing shoulders with the president of France or USA who represent their states on these occasions. For illustration: Margaret Thatcher with Ronald Reagan. Tony Blair with Bill Clinton and George Bush. All forged close links with the US president. Media plays a really of import function in the alteration of function of the Prime Minister.

It is the proliferation of intelligence and current personal businesss of programme. the reaching of 24-hours intelligence. and the usage of engineering which allowed instant coverage from anyplace in the universe. The turning importance of the media in political relation has contributed to the greater concentration on the single holder of the office of the premier curate instead than the authorities as a whole. He have a big group of advisors whole exclusive undertaking of alteration media image of their maestro to command the flow of information coming out of Downing Street. As a consequence. the public semen to see authorities in term of its prima member instead than as a aggregation of Minister and MPs. The media besides contribute to the relationship between the Prime Minister and the President. For illustration: it makes the foreign office force of Margaret Thatcher become clearer. She had a close contact with Ronald Reagan – the US President. With the aid of media. throughout the universe. she becomes the authorities.

Ms Thatcher and her advisors carefully cultivated her image as a national leader. at clip above. and distinguishable from the authorities. It could be said that the Prime Minister now has an extended web of personal advisors. think armored combat vehicles. policy units and working groups that serve him entirely and are non available to the remainder of the authorities unless he wants them to be so. If the President has his ain staff in White House and big executive office. the premier curate has his ain ‘government department’ in Downing Street. This is a organic structure known as the ‘cabinet office’ . It existed to function the whole cabinet and did non straight affect with policy devising. However. since 1960. it is chiefly used to function the Prime Minister entirely. It becomes far more concerned with policy development.

This enables the premier curate to play a polar function and so look to be ascendant authorities. Efficaciously. the premier curate has an constitution of several hundred advisors who work straight or indirectly. for him. For illustration. when Tony Blair was elected in 1997. the Prime Minister’s Staff was doubled during the first two old ages of the Blair premiership. Not merely does this suggest that the Prime Ministers place has been strengthened. it besides points to the outgrowth of a ‘Prime Minister department’ . fact. there is a construct which calls ‘spatial leadership’ . This is a theory of premier ministerial power. It suggests that political systems are progressively led by the leaders who consider themselves to be separate from the remainder of the authorities.

This makes the Prime Minister go more presidential because the Presidents are elected individually from the remainder of the authorities and hence have a different beginning of authorization and are accountable straight to the people. The Prime Minister. hence. becomes more dominant with the office holder to see himself as offprint from the authorities. Furthermore. to some extent. he has his ain authorization straight from the people. However. the office of Prime Minister is the most flexible 1. It is what the holder wishes to do of it. Some Prime Minister will seek to rule while the others will be either unable or unwilling to make so. The existent powers and restrictions of the office have non changed a great trade in modern times. For illustration. there are two really dominant persons – Thatcher and Blair – who have able to squash every bit much power from the office as possible. The weaker premiership like John Major and James Callaghan prove that presidential manner is non inevitable. It is fundamentally. the dominant function of premier curate invariably ebbs and flows.

The ability of the premier curate would make up one’s mind how their power will be dominant in the office section. Another point is that the Prime Minister deficiencies of the absolute power to go a true president. There are many importance forces that will harness his power. Although the premier curates now seem to be more presidential but in fact they are capable to the same restraints that have ever existed. The premier curate does non hold power to make what they want. If there is any policy that can non be passed by the cabinet. the premier curate will non lose his occupation until his period terminal. His cabinet and his ain party leading have force to harness their leader’s power. For illustration: Margaret Thatcher was finally reined in by her ain party leading when she attempted to implement a policy against their wants.

There is besides an analysis which is the ‘elastic’ theory. It suggests that. as a premier curate attempts to stretch the power of the office further and further. the force restraint becomes progressively strong. There is another illustration about Margaret Thatcher who gained increasing Numberss of enemies as she sought to exert more and more control. Finally the enemies turned on her when they felt they had adequate strength to take her. The concluding point is the premier curate has no right to presidential position. The experience of Gordon Brown is a clear grounds for this point. Brown suffered charge that he had ne’er faced the electorate as premier curate and possibly above all. he was unfortunate plenty to preside over the lay waste toing recognition crunch and the economic recession that followed it.

We can state that Brown is the authoritative modern illustration of a premier curate whose power was destroyed by universe events. some were beyond his control. In decision. I would reason that the premier curate can take to go more presidential because all depend on his ability and power. If he can work and use expeditiously his office section. he can dominant his power. However. the power of the premier curate invariably ebbs and flows. the presidential manner is non inevitable. Furthermore. there are besides many force from the party leading can harness the premier minister’s power and the restraint can take him.