An analysis of the powers enjoyed by the British House of Commons, using a three-dimensional framework of power. Comparisons to other parliaments are employed throughout to highlight distinctions. The essay concludes that the House of Commons does not dispose of extensive powers, and remains powerful when compared to its counterparts in other countries.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Concepts of Power
Coercive and Persuasive Power
Agenda-Setting Power
Institutional Power
Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This essay explores the extent of actual power held by the British Parliament, challenging the perception of its sovereignty by analyzing its role relative to the executive branch. By applying a multi-dimensional framework of power, the study examines legislative influence, control over the agenda, and institutional constraints to determine the status of the House of Commons within the Westminster system.
- Three-dimensional framework of power (Dahl, Bachrach/Baratz, Lukes).
- Executive dominance and the erosion of parliamentary legislative autonomy.
- Government control over the parliamentary agenda and time allocation.
- Institutional influence of party systems, electoral mechanisms, and the role of the Prime Minister.
- The potential for parliamentary assertion through scrutiny and committee activity.
Excerpt from the Book
Coercive and Persuasive Power
In Britain, the House of Commons is supposed to be the primary legislative body. Yet, government frontbenchers seem to play an utterly dominant role when it comes to the actual decisions on the adoption of bills. Baranger opines that parliament ‘do[es] not go much further than “advising” the executive on the content of bills’ (2007: 26). In fact, we can identify a transition towards granting more legislative power to the executive, beginning in the second half of the 19th Century, which encompassed measures to ensure more legislative efficiency (Ibid: 28-9). Yet, the corollary to this development was a reduction in legislative power for parliamentarians.
A useful example to illustrate the legislative power exercised by the executive in Britain is the fact that it has a monopoly on the introduction of bills which have financial implications. Effectively, this has been the case since the early 18th Century and is currently enshrined in Standing Order Number 48 (Le Divellec, 2007: 121). The low degree of legislative autonomy is reflected by Sieberer’s categorization of the UK parliament. In fact, it scores second to last in his Parliamentary Freedom of Choice Index, only besting the French parliament (2011: 743). In terms of policy-making influence, Westminster beats only Ireland and Greece (Ibid: 746). This is part of the reason why Mezey states that ‘the House of Commons does not have the effective power to say no to the government’ (1990: 171).
Chapter Summaries
Introduction: This section introduces the research problem, specifically the tension between the theoretical sovereignty of Parliament and its practical subservience to the executive, prompted by the 2013 Syrian conflict vote.
Concepts of Power: This chapter defines the theoretical lens of the study, adopting a multi-dimensional framework covering coercive, persuasive, agenda-setting, and institutional power.
Coercive and Persuasive Power: This section analyzes the decline of the House of Commons as a legislative chamber, highlighting the executive's monopoly on financial legislation and the limited autonomy of private members.
Agenda-Setting Power: This chapter details how the UK government exerts total control over the parliamentary agenda, leaving minimal room for opposition or non-executive members to influence the parliamentary schedule.
Institutional Power: This section discusses structural factors such as political party cohesion, the electoral system, and the influence of the Prime Minister that reinforce executive dominance.
Conclusion: The final section summarizes that the UK parliament remains one of the most feeble in Western Europe, though it retains some influence through ex post scrutiny and its ability to act as a deterrent to the executive.
Keywords
British Parliament, House of Commons, Executive Dominance, Power, Westminster System, Legislative Autonomy, Agenda-Setting, Party Cohesion, Private Members' Bills, Select Committees, Parliamentary Sovereignty, Policy-making, Electoral System, Scrutiny, Political Parties.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research?
The research examines the true extent of power held by the British Parliament compared to the executive branch, testing the assumption of parliamentary sovereignty.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
The study focuses on the legislative process, government agenda control, institutional structures like political parties, and the role of MPs in policy-making.
What is the main research question?
The essay asks how much power the British Parliament actually possesses in practice, given its historical reputation and current limitations.
Which scientific method is employed?
The author employs a multi-dimensional analytical framework derived from political science theories of power, combined with comparative data from other legislatures.
What topics are discussed in the main body of the work?
The main body breaks down parliamentary power into coercive/persuasive, agenda-setting, and institutional categories, while also comparing the UK system to other Western European parliaments.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include British Parliament, executive dominance, agenda-setting, party cohesion, legislative autonomy, and the Westminster system.
How does the executive control the parliamentary agenda?
The executive controls the parliamentary timetable, fixes time limits for bills, and prevents legislation from being carried over, effectively minimizing opportunities for non-government actors.
Does the House of Commons hold any power over the government?
Yes, the House exerts power through "deterrent effects," scrutiny via select committees, and by influencing ministerial opinions through private and intra-party discussions.
What role do political parties play in this institutional analysis?
Political parties act as the primary institutional power-holders, using party whips to ensure cohesion and align MPs with executive objectives.
Why is the British electoral system relevant to the argument?
The "First Past the Post" system typically creates single-party governments, which significantly enhances executive dominance compared to coalition-based systems found elsewhere.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Tim Pfefferle (Autor:in), 2013, How Much Power Does the British Parliament Have?, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/265909
