Revision Update: UK Politics: Exemplar Answer: Does the Executive Have Too Much Power?

DOES THE EXECUTIVE HAVE TOO MUCH POWER?

Lord Hailsham stated that the UK has an “elective dictatorship” in the sense that the executive is able to dominate the legislature. It could be said that the UK has a fusion of powers rather than a separation of powers. Whilst it could be argued that the UK system is markedly different from that of the US which is based upon the separation of powers, it should be recognised that there are limits upon the power of the executive.

The executive could be said to have too much power principally because parliament is unable to serve as an effective check. The government controls the parliamentary timetable which restricts the function of both houses. Private members bills are unlikely to be successful which caused Jack Straw to demand that the backbenchers be given more powers.

The influence of the whips ensures that the government wields great power and is able to avoid any significant defeats. The use of a three line whip means that MPs must toe the party line of face sanctions. This might be through the use of the “carrot” with the possibility of promotion to cabinet rank or the use of the “stick” with the withdrawal of the parliamentary whip as has recently happened with Nadine Dorries. MPs could face deselction if they do not obey the commands of the executive.

Parliamentary sovereignty is also a key factor in the unchecked power of the executive. Not only do the government have the use of strict party discipline via the whips but they have an inbuilt majority in the House of Commons. Labour had enormous majorities of 179 and 169 after their landslide election victories of 1997 and 2001 respectively. As there is no power of judicial review due to the absence of a written constitution, the government has a virtual blank cheque to legislate how it chooses when in office. Government defeats are exceedingly rare as the House of Lords only has the power of delay after the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. In this sense Parliament is nothing more than a “rubber stamp” endorsing the decisions and policies made by the executive and MPs no more than lobby fodder which reduces parliament as a whole to nothing more than a “talking shop.”

The power of the executive however should not be exaggerated. The government does face several real constraints.

Parliament cannot be taken for granted. At the present time the coalition government faces a particularly rebellious House of Commons. It may have a majority of 83 but the Conservative backbenchers particularly have shown a tendency to revolt inflicting significant defeats on the government over House of Lords reforms and the issue of a referendum on the EU. The whips would seem powerless to keep Conservative eurosceptics in line and Cowley and Stuart have pointed out that MPs are more inclined to rebel today than in the past.

Recent legislation has also served to curb the power of the executive. The Human Rights Act has greatly empowered the judiciary to check the government. On issues such as the deportation of Abu Qatada and prisoners’ right to vote, the government has agreed to abide by the spirit of the rulings and the HRA. This amounts to form of judicial review which limits executive power. Similarly, the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 has ended the power of judicial appointment by the executive and handed it to an independent judicial appointments committee.

The power of the executive is also checked by the people at election time. Just as the people can give the government a mandate, they can remove a government from office. The system of first past the post is brutally efficient in not only creating a strong government but also in providing the means of holding the government to account. Consequently Labour were unceremoniously removed from office in 2010 which provides a graphic demonstration of the checks on executive power.

In a parliamentary system, the government will wield great power and the executive does have more power than in other systems. The British Prime Minister is more powerful domestically than a US president. The control over the legislative process means that public bill committees are unlikely to support opposition amendments and the power of Departmental Select Committees renders them as watchdogs without teeth. Governments can reject their findings. That power is however subject to a very real constraint at election time when the people exercise the ultimate power which does then ensure that the executive does not have too much power.