The Formal and Informal Sources of Strength and Constraints on the President of the United States and the British Prime Minister Harry Dauer Philip Beech Introduction Constitutional Strength 2. British Prime Minister Constitutional Restraint 2. The British Prime Minister Comparison Conclusion 1 Introduction In most democratic countries, provisions for the establishment and legitimizing of the head of government, or executive branch, can usually be found in their constitutions. As in the case of both the U.S. President and the British Prime Minister, sources of strength can either be informally recognized by convention and practice as in the British example or explicitly / formally stated as in the U.S. Constitution. Our topic compares the formal and informal sources of strength and constraint that the United States President and the British Prime Minister are empowered with and restricted by as heads of government. 2 Constitutional Strength Within the U.S. Constitution, the powers granted to the president are explicitly enumerated in Article 2, the Executive Branch. The powers granted to the president are chief executive (article 2, section 1), commander in chief of the armed forces (article 2, section 2), chief diplomat with the power to make treaties (article 2, section 2), chief recruiting officer of the executive branch and courts (article 2, section 2) chief legislator, by making recommendations to
Congress (article 2, section 3), and the power to exercise the right to veto (article 1, section 7). In addition to the president s role as head of government, he/she also carries out the role of head of state. As head of state, the president performs diplomatic and ceremonial functions which in Britain, would normally be performed by the Monarchy. In contrast to the British Constitution which separates the head of state (The Queen) from the head of government (The Prime Minister), the U.S. President is responsible for both roles. 2. British Prime Minister In comparison, the British constitution is made up of both written and unwritten parts. According to Richards, It is often said that Britain has an unwritten constitution, but this is only true in the sense that rules guiding the system are not set out in a single document with a special procedure required for amending these rules as was done in the United States. 1) The provisions within the British constitution granting legitimacy for the prime minister to rule are a matter of convention, not statute and are therefore extremely flexible. Convention dictates, among other things, that the Monarchy takes no part in politics, the prime minister (PM) is the leader of the House of Commons and that he/she will lead, the PM is responsible for the appointment and dismissal of his/her cabinet and top civil servants, is responsible for the creation of cabinet committees and appoints their chairpersons, and along with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is a member of the powerful Budget Committee. In addition, the Prime Minister is minister for the Civil Service and has responsibility for considerable powers of patronage and also wields an increasing control over release of governmental information and press relations. In government the PM is responsible for the implementation of government strategy and the translation of the policies of different departments into a coherent plan. This enables the PM to intervene in any policy area where he feels it is politically important to the government, essential for the national interest or he disagrees with a particular minister s recommendations. The PM as opposed to other ministers has access to the work of all the other ministries and thus has the power to intervene in any of them. The only limits on this power of intervention are the departmental minister s opposition to interference and the PM s energy and determination to force through his own policy. The British PM would seem to hold great authority as leader of both his party and head of a single-party government. Ministers are both colleagues as well as subordinates. He chairs the Cabinet. He commands instant press attention. He advises the [Monarch]. He meets presidents, monarchs, ambassadors and foreign ministers. He hires, fires and decides. 2) In fact the PM s powers are limited in number and circumscribed by both formal and informal constraints. The PM s power of appointment is restricted by the requirement that appointees sit in Parliament, so most governments will have about 350 M.P. s to choose from. Of these, many may be unsuitable on grounds of age, too old or too young, or for a variety of other reasons, both political or personal. The PM must also balance party factions and the claims of senior colleagues as well as place specific people in certain jobs. The Lord Chancellor must be a lawyer and it is politic to have Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales from those countries. The PM s power of dismissal is hedged about by the political acrimony caused by a minister who does not want to go, as the governing party is made to look divided and in turmoil. Thus, Mrs. Thatcher was left with a number of wets or more liberal ministers in her first cabinet which she could only dismiss piecemeal over a period of time. The appointment of John Prescott as Deputy Leader in Tony Blair s first cabinet is widely seen as a sop to Old socialist Labour as opposed to
The Formal and Informal Sources of Strength and Constraints on the President of the United States and the British Prime Minister: A Comparative Perspective. Dauer Beech Blair s more centralist New Labour. The British PM s powers are also constrained by time. The duties of the office means that the PM lives in a constant rush. He must chair the Cabinet, make speeches, pay and receive state visits, answer parliamentary questions, attend a regular audience with the monarch as well as look after the affairs of his own constituency. This hectic pace limits the ability of the PM to intervene in too many policy areas at once. Another limiting factor is the power and independence of individual ministers who are experts in their own fields, individually or collectively in Cabinet, they can constitute a powerful check on the actions of the PM. The premier can urge a new direction in departmental policy but in the final analysis he relies on the minister to do the work. The relationship between a PM and his ministers is essentially symbiotic and one of mutual reliance. 3 Constitutional Restraint Within the framework of the U.S. Constitution, explicitly limitations on the U.S. President s strength is restricted by two political bodies; the Congress, and the Supreme Court. The U.S. Constitution s concept of checks and balances was specifically designed to limit the power of the executive branch. Constitutionally providing the legislative and judicial branches with checks, or a means of restraining executive proposed legislation, the president must obtain Congress approval for his/her bills to become law. This approval is carried out in the form a vote in which both houses of Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate, vote on the president s bill. If it is voted in favor of by a 50% majority in each house, the bill becomes law; if not passed by a majority in either house, the bill is returned to the president. In addition, the Supreme Court, like the Congress, also has the constitutional right to check the legislative power of the president and the Congress. This check that the Supreme Court is empowered with is called Judicial Review. If the president or Congress proposes a bill or passes a law which the Supreme Court views as being contrary to the spirit of the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court has the authority to rule the bill or law unconstitutional, thus rendering it null and void. The president s strength is also implicitly constrained by the electorate, bureaucracies and the president s own party. In the case of the U.S. President, party loyalty is not as major a factor for political stability as in Britain. Tenure of office for the president, four years with the possibility of an additional four, and the Congress, Senate - six years, House of Representatives - two years, provides the U.S. government stability regardless of party loyalty. Thus the electorate can reward the president, and Congress by extending their tenure in office by re-electing them, or on the contrary, chastising them by not re-electing them. This stability of tenure is a source of strength for the U.S. President for it allows legislation to be pursued, which may even be incongruent to the president s own party ideology, without risking a collapse of government. Since party loyalty is not as crucial as it is for the British Prime Minister, another factor has come to play a major role in the strength and weakness of the U.S. President; persuasion and communication. The presidency of Jimmy Carter is an example of how a president s communication and persuasion skills can be more significant to enact legislation than party loyalty. In 1976 Carter was elected to office with a majority of his own political party (Democratic) in both the Senate and the
House of Representatives. Political analysts at the time assumed that since the executive branch of government was of the same political party as the legislative branch, major pieces of progressive legislation would speedily be processed through Washington. Much to the dismay of the electorate and to the frustration of the president himself, the Congress was locked in stalemate after stalemate with the president on many key issues. His impasse with the Congress was in large part due to his lack of oratory and communication skills, historians believe. More than party loyalty, the ability to persuade and communicate well is a strength that a U.S. President needs to be successful. An opposite case in point of a Republican president faced with a Democratic Congress, who was still able to lead, was the Reagan presidency. Through persuasion, communication and overall popularity in his second term of office, Reagan was able to lead the Democratically controlled Congress to pass numerous bills. It was on this basis that he was dubbed the great communicator. 2. The British Prime Minister The first source of strength for the British Prime Minister is party loyalty. An indication of this strength is exemplified in the fact that not since the 1880 s has a party through disloyalty brought down their own government. If not for party loyalty, cohesion within the government would be non-existent resulting in a loss of confidence in the government which could bring about its collapse. How is party loyalty maintained? Party loyalty, the life blood of a prime ministers strength, is brought about by coercion, rewards, patronage and ideological enthusiasm. In charge of maintaining party cohesion is the party s Patronage Secretary, more commonly known as the Chief Whip. As a means of convincing Members of Parliament (M.P. s) to vote along party lines, the whip may resort to enticement by means of coercion. Assignment of larger office space, promises of advancement within the party s rank and file, and promotions to influential committees may be used. In addition, rewards such as appointments to ministerial posts or to comfortable international investigation committees are also employed. However, should dissension within the ranks of the party be detected, the whip has several powers at his/her disposal to discipline dissenting M.P. s. These range from demoting an M.P. from a position of power to that of a common backbencher, to non-renewal of the M.P. s party ticket prior to the next general election. However, it must be pointed out that disciplining M.P s to this extent is not a common occurrence. The second most powerful source of the prime minister s strength is found in the supporting apparatus of government. The prime minister is at the head of a complex network of governmental agencies and commissions which he/she has an indirect, if not direct, influence over. This chain of command can be visualized as follows. Prime Minister Senior Ministers in the Cabinet Ministers outside the Cabinet Ministers of State and Parliamentary Secretaries Senior Civil Servants Departments of State Within the sphere of direct control over the cabinet, the prime minister has the power to choose his/her colleagues for
The Formal and Informal Sources of Strength and Constraints on the President of the United States and the British Prime Minister: A Comparative Perspective. Dauer Beech cabinet or ministerial positions. Among other powers, the prime minister is able to ask for a dissolution of parliament and to select a date for the next general election. However, like the party whip, the P.M. can also exercise party discipline by being able to decide which items will appear on the daily cabinet agenda. This has a particularly isolating effect in that items not listed on the party s agenda will not be discussed by the government. Therefore, should there be a dissenting minister in the cabinet that the prime minister would like to chastise, by simply manipulating the daily agenda as to not include contributions by that minister, the prime minister is able to get his/her message across with relative ease. 4 Comparison In discussing the strengths and restraints on the British Prime Minister and U.S. President, the question that often arises is Does the British Prime Minister have more power than the U.S. President? In terms of political stability in tenure of office, the U.S. President has more power than his/her British counterpart. The U.S. President, unlike the British Prime Minister, is directly elected to office by the electorate. Thus, this gives the president a direct responsibility to those who elected him. In the case of the Prime Minister, this executive officer is an extension of the legislative branch and is not directly in contact with the electorate. This rapport with the populace, should it be on good terms, can be used by the president to rally support for his/her policies and also to pressure the legislative branch. In addition, the U.S. President once elected to office can assume that he/she will hold that position for the next four years regardless of party loyalty or political stagnation. On the other hand, the British Prime Minister holds his/her tenure of office on the subjective basis of party loyalty, both within his party and within the electorate. His/her tenure of office may last from several months to several years, depending on the political climate. Within the realm of bureaucracy and civil service, the U.S. President and British Prime Minister have several strengths and weakness. In 1979, when Mrs. Thatcher was elected to office, a majority of the top civil servants did not leave their posts after the government changed hands, this is because top civil servants are essentially head bureaucrats in government. Their relationship with the cabinet is intimate. They answer directly to the minister depending on the department they belong to. Even though civil servants, as a rule, behave as their political masters expect them to behave, they on numerous occasions give advice to department ministers. Since civil servants are not elected officials, they have no obligation to the parliament. Department ministers respect the servant s advice because of their long tenure and past experience with government. In the case when a new party takes office in the United States, the president must make up to 50,000 appointments to the civil service. This power of appointment has a significant effect on not only the daily running of government, but also on the access to and utilization of a vast wealth of information. Should the president choose so, he/she may use this information to his/her advantage in drafting legislation or in dealing with Congress. One important context where the office of the British Prime Minister would seem to have less formal restraint than the U.S. President is in the case of a declaration of war. In the U.S. a formal declaration of war would need the consent of both Houses of Congress whereas in Britain a meeting of the Privy Council (usually the Cabinet who are all members of the Privy Council) held in the presence of the monarch suffices. Thus, the Vietnam War was never formally declared due to opposition in Congress and thus the Geneva Convention was not observed by either side during the conflict.
5 Conclusion The sources of formal and informal strength for an American President and a British Prime Minister differ. Enumerated in Article 2 (the Executive Branch), the president draws strength from explicit laws granted by the U.S. Constitution. On the other hand, constitutional convention, essentially established tradition, grants legitimacy for the Prime Minister to rule as the leader of the largest party after a general election, thus the Prime Minister s major source of strength is found in party loyalty. Should the Prime Minister not be persuasive or be a good orator, party loyal can still be relied upon for support. Conversely, regardless of the U.S. President s own political party, should he/she not be skilled in interpersonal communication or persuasion, the results could be paralyzing. Though party loyalty plays an important part in passing legislation through Congress, it is not as important as it is for the British Prime Minister. The president s political stability can be drawn from the confidence that there will not be a change of government for at least four years after he/she is elected regardless if dissension within the president s own party does not allow legislation to pass through Congress, as explicitly expressed in the constitution. As we can see, the importance of party loyalty over individual personality is a major source of strength for the British Prime Minister as individual personality over party loyalty is for the U.S. President. Footnotes 1 ) Richards, P.G. (1988) Mackintosh s The Government and Politics of Britain. London, Unwin Hyman, LTD. 1:13. 2 ) James, S. (1999) British Cabinet Government. London and New York, Routledge. 4: 95. References Ashford, D.E. (1981). Policy and Politics in Britain: The Limitations of Consensus. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Barber, J.D. (1985). The Presidential Character. London: Prentice Hall. Coxall, B. & Lynton, R. (1994). Contemporary British Politics. London: Macmillan Press. Gardner, R. & Kelly, R. (1988). British Political Parties Today. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Hague, R.,Harrop, M. & Breslin, S. (1992). Comparative Government and Politics: An Introduction. London: Macmillan Press. Hargrove, E.C. & Nelson, M. (1984). Presidents, Politics and Policy. New York: Knopf. Hennessy, P. (1986). Cabinet. Oxford: Blackwell. James, S. (1999). British Cabinet Government. London and New York, Routledge. McKay, D. (1989). American Politics and Society. Oxford: Blackwell. Norton, P. (1984). The British Polity. New York: Longman. Oakland, J. (1991). British Civilization: An Introduction. London and New York: Routledge. Richards, P.G. (1988). Mackintosh s the Government and Politics of Britain. London: Unwin Hyman. Vile, M.J.C. (1999). Politics in the USA. Routledge: London.