To What Extent Does the Prime Minister Dominate the Uk's Political System?

“The role of the Prime Minister has become more presidential”. Discuss.

Presidentialism is one of the four theories of executive power within the UK. Presidentialism is the belief in the presidential system or the belief in being led by a President: they are the head of the state and the head of the government but the executive branch of government is separate from the legislative branch. So, the role of the Prime Minister in the UK had become more presidential as recently, there have been more authoritarian prime ministers, such as Blair and Thatcher and the Prime Minister has become more dominating in the cabinet. However, the role of the Prime Minister has not become fully presidential because the UK’s system of parliamentary government prevents a presidential government: for example, there is no constitutional separation of powers between the legislative and executive, which characterises the UK system. And so, to show that the role of the Prime Minister has become more presidential, the role of the head of the state in the UK, the growth of spatial leadership, personalised mandates, the widened use of special advisors and the strengthened cabinet office will be discussed.

Officially, the role of the head of the state in the UK is the monarch. In contrast to the USA, the obvious presidential system, where the head of the state is the president, the Queen currently is the head of the state and has many roles as part of the Royal Prerogative. For example, the Queen can declare a war, approve a law and appoint ministers. However, most of these powers are purely ceremonial- for example, the Prime Minister officially declares a war and the Queen only ceremonially appoints ministers. Therefore, it can be argued that the role of the Prime Minister has become more presidential as the powers of the Prime Minister have been increasing at the expense official head of the state, whose powers have slowly been diminishing. However, it could be argued that the role of the Prime Minister is not becoming more presidential as the elections are still very difficult. Essentially, the president is elected by the people, whereas the Prime Minister is appointed by the Queen (officially). There are no direct elections to choose the Prime Minister: they are chosen through party elections, and so people may be voting for the party (and so ideology) rather than the leader of the party. However, before the two Houses cast their nominations, the people choose the president in the USA in presidential elections. However, although the elections are different, the role of the two leaders can still be slowly merging, even if the way that they are elected is different and so the role of the Prime Minister is becoming more presidential.

Furthermore, the role of the Prime Minister is becoming more presidential, as seen by the growth of spatial leadership. This is the tendency of the Prime Minister to distance themselves from their parties and governments by presenting themselves as outsiders or developing their own, personal ideological stance. For example, Thatcher and Blair were seen as very distant from their parties and ruled in a more authoritarian and from a distance from their parties. This is similar to how the president rules, as they have the overriding decision and do not need the support of their party in some cases. Conversely, it can be argued that the role of the Prime Minister is not becoming more presidential because the Prime Minister is accountable to parliament through parliamentary government and rule of law, but the president is accountable to the people. Although, it is argued that the Prime Minister is accountable to the people via the media (such as House of Common debates) and considering that parliament is supposed to be representing the people, arguably the Prime Minister is accountable to the people. Furthermore, the role of the Prime Minister is becoming more presidential through personal mandates. This is the trend for Prime Ministers to claim popular authority on the basis of their electoral success, and so they have become results of ideological consciences of their party, their chief source of conviction and policy direction. This is not dissimilar from the role of the president, and so the argument is maintained that the role of the Prime Minister has become more presidential because they become the figurehead of the party and gain authority over their party. The media portrays the Prime Minister as the head of the party, government and ideology: which was particularly prominent with Blair, especially as he reformed the Labour Party whilst he was Prime Minister. Therefore, the argument is maintained that the role of the Prime Minister has become more presidential.

...