Since outmoded times, the Prime Minister’s (PM’s) roles have largely remained unchanged but their manners of execution have been influenced more by practical circumstances than the materiality of the roles themselves. The conventional view of the PM as being ‘primus inter pares’ seems quite anachronistic considering the apparent increase in PMs’ power. Nonetheless, the tenability of this view will be determined in the analysis of the PM’s and the Cabinet’s roles and their relationship before the second question is addressed.
Due to the absence of statutory authority governing the PM’s roles, PMs themselves have to maximize their roles and one of such roles is the power of patronage. As seen in 2006, Charles Clarke was fired as the Home Secretary by Tony Blair in a cabinet exodus. Yet in some instances, political circumstances can constrain PMs as evidenced in David Cameron having to discuss ministerial appointments with Nick Clegg as coalition partners which was something Cameron would have had unfettered command of otherwise. Nevertheless, PMs almost always exercise full-fledged control over patronage since Coalition governments are …show more content…
The notion of ‘Prime Ministerial’ government overthrowing Cabinet government is tenuous at best since PMs cannot enjoy a prolonged tenure by antagonizing or ignoring the Cabinet.
Turning to the second question, it is well established that the government and Parliament are important constitutional actors but normative trends indicate that the former often dominates the latter which, as some argue, results in an unfavorable ‘elective dictatorship’ and thus undermines the system of checks and balances. Regardless of this claim I will seek to elucidate this matter in the forthcoming
Due to the absence of statutory authority governing the PM’s roles, PMs themselves have to maximize their roles and one of such roles is the power of patronage. As seen in 2006, Charles Clarke was fired as the Home Secretary by Tony Blair in a cabinet exodus. Yet in some instances, political circumstances can constrain PMs as evidenced in David Cameron having to discuss ministerial appointments with Nick Clegg as coalition partners which was something Cameron would have had unfettered command of otherwise. Nevertheless, PMs almost always exercise full-fledged control over patronage since Coalition governments are …show more content…
The notion of ‘Prime Ministerial’ government overthrowing Cabinet government is tenuous at best since PMs cannot enjoy a prolonged tenure by antagonizing or ignoring the Cabinet.
Turning to the second question, it is well established that the government and Parliament are important constitutional actors but normative trends indicate that the former often dominates the latter which, as some argue, results in an unfavorable ‘elective dictatorship’ and thus undermines the system of checks and balances. Regardless of this claim I will seek to elucidate this matter in the forthcoming