Presidentialisation Thesis Statements
not parliamentary democracies have become presidentialised and/or personalised has becomemost controversial in the case of Britain and in particular, the Prime Ministership of TonyBlair (See Foley 2004, Heffernan 2005, Bennister 2008, Petitt 2011 and Heffernan 2005a).Britain, it is argued, has experienced a shift to a more presidential type system, largely due tothe power resources obtained by Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair. From the perspective of McAllister in Aarts et. Al (2011:52),
The Prime Minister now exercises unprecedented power in shaping ministerial careers, a crucial tool in ensuring compliance and centralizingauthority.
This global change towards a presidentialisation of political leadership can beexplained by a number of factors including a breakdown in social cleavages, the decline of the importance of political parties and decreasing partisan loyalties, a fall in voter turnout anda rapid growth in new and political communication which has seen leaders gain far morefocus (McAllister 2011:59).Britain, with its plurality system is argued to have experienced this on a greater thanaverage scale and more so under the leadership of Tony Blair. Richard Heffernan gives an
interesting account of Blair‟s character; “
[He] looked like a President, talked like a President,acted like a President, and therefore perhaps was a President
(Heffernan 2005:53). Withoutgoing into the extensive
details of Tony Blair‟s time as Prime Minister, his leadership did
bring about a presidentialisation argument, it is argued. Blair was seen as the Prime Minister who, more so than any other before him, centralised power in Downing Street and vastlyreduced the power of the Cabinet, leading to an executive where the leader attempted tocentralise and internalise most of the power and decision-making (Foley 2004: 294-300).Blair was understood by many to be in favour of a presidential style system. It is argued thathis time in Downing Street pushed the constitutional constraint of a parliamentary democracyto the limit;
„The marginalisation of the Cabinet, the reduced significance of the parliament, theonset of prime ministerial press conferences, the enhancement of the Prime Minister‟s
resources in policy advice and managerial co-ordination as well as the increased usage of special advisors, business personnel, focus group and task forces have all been cited as
constitutional evidence of a process of presidentialisation‟ (Foley 2004:302
-303).Foley is quick to point out these effects can only be judged as observations as theformal constitutional and institutional rules continue to resemble a parliamentary system.Blair maximised the institutional resources available to him to maximise his power and
Discover Central Goverment
Are British Prime Ministers becoming more like US Presidents?
Academics have debated the ‘presidentialisation thesis’ which suggests that the role of the British Prime Ministers have developed a role more similar to that of a President. This is normally thought of in terms of three factors which have enhanced the power of the Prime Minister above that of other members of the Cabinet to make him or her more like the American President:-
Just as the US President is broadly in control of American foreign and defence policy so has the Prime Minister developed a stronger international role. The Prime Minister represents Britain at a range of international summits such as the G7 meetings and European Union meetings and has considerable autonomy from the Cabinet in deciding what to negotiate about and what Britain’s position will be. The development of the War on Terror by Bush and Blair has also meant that the Prime Minister has an enhanced role in relation to defence and security issues.
The Prime Minister, like the US President, now has a large central staff which can develop policies, control the Government machine and influence the media. The 24 hour news cycle of constant media coverage means that the Prime Minister has to quickly deal with any Government problem that occurs in order to stop it being portrayed as weak Government and so, like the US President, has become seen as the central figurehead of Government. The Cabinet Office whose role was to coordinate Government as a whole has, since the Blair Premiership, increasingly come under the control of the Prime Minister.
The US President is elected directly by voters and the personality and experience of those standing for Presidential office is tested by the media in Presidential elections. In the same way, the personality and capabilities of party leaders have become more important in British General elections. US Presidents have never been dependent on their party to stay in office and equally the British Prime Minister has become more powerful as against the Parliamentary Party and his or her party colleagues.
There are a number of criticisms of the presidentialisation thesis, some of which depend on pointing out that the British political system is very different to the American political system, and indeed those of other countries such as France and Russia with a powerful President, and so it is difficult to compare them.
The US President is also the Head of State and has a symbolic prestige within the nation that the British Prime Minister will never have. The President can appeal to the public over the heads of Congressmen, whereas the Prime Minister could never ignore Parliament.
The President remains in that position regardless of what happens in Congress, even if it is controlled by the other party, and has been directly elected by the people and so is relatively independent of his party. The Prime Minister depends on a majority in Parliament and is leader of his party and so needs to be careful to maintain unity among his parliamentary Party and the wider party in the country.
The President can appoint whoever he wants to run Government Departments and so creates a team of people who depend on him and are loyal to him. The Prime Minister has to appoint significant politicians who may even be rivals and has to manage the Cabinet system and keep unity within the Government.
In other ways Prime Ministers are actually more powerful within their political systems than Presidents. A Prime Minister with a majority in Parliament can be sure to get policies and legislation through pretty much all the time. The President and his Office have to spend a lot of time trying to put together a majority in Congress for policies that the President wants to see, as happened with Obama’s new health care system. Faced with a Congress firmly in the control of the other party, a President may only be able to veto proposed legislation and not see anything from his own agenda carried through.
Prime Ministers have always been actively involved in foreign policy and so this aspect is now new. In the interwar period Lloyd George practically invented the system of heads of Government meeting in European summits, MacDonald was his own Foreign Minister for a period and Chamberlain was actively involved in the policy of appeasement of Germany.