In the Netherlands, the office is lost by a new coalition forming after a general election or the coalition failing during its' period of office and a new formateur appointed. There have been twelve Prime Ministers forming 21 coalitions between 1945 and 1991. The main reason for the loss of the job is a new coalition forming after a general election. Similarly, the position in Italy is lost by the collapse of government or a new coalition forming after an election, but here there is one difference, Italian coalitions collapse very frequently. Between 1947 and 1995, there were 31 changes in Prime Minister heading 49 coalitions, nine changes were the result of a general election, forty were due to a collapse of government.
Number of Changes in Prime Minister. Number of New Governments. Average Life of Prime Ministers' Government. Britain. 10 10 4 years 5 months. Holland. 11 20 3 years 7 months. Italy. 28 46 1 year 7 months.
Table to show the average time in power a prime minister had in each country 1947-1991.
The table above compares the three countries over the period 1947-1991. It shows that the average Italian Prime Minister is in power for less than half the time of the average Dutch or British Premier over the same time scale. This brings to light an interesting point, that is why two countries with broadly similar styles of coalition government with broadly Christian parties dominating it have such differences in their length of office, that is, why is Italy so much more unstable? There are a number of answers to this, the first and most obvious is that the two systems of Italy and Holland are not as similar as it may seem, Italy has a far more fragmented party system than the Dutch, together with vastly different histories. Secondly, the second largest party during this period, the Communist party (PCI), was excluded from forming any coalition government by the other parties. This was despite the fact that PCI consistently polled between 22.7% (1958) and 34.4% (1976) of the popular vote to the Chamber of Deputies. This gives a large opposition party - a potentially strong force with which to bring a coalition down. It has also led to coalitions being formed with a many small parties in order to gain a majority.
Thirdly, up until 1988, the legislature voted in secret which allowed both the opposition and members of the government to vote without any kind of cohesiveness and allow 'tactical' voting to bring the government down. Forthly, Elgie argues that there is "an incentive to create crisis situations in the hope that that they [the party] might obtain more positions or more senior positions in the incoming government." He argues that the nature of coalition building in itself in Italy because it concentrates on power sharing and makes little of policy commitments, this means that the members of the coalition have few reservations about bringing the government down to gain greater power. This is more so for the centralist parties who are nearly always involved in the consensus in some way and see no way that they will lose power.
In the Netherlands, ten of the coalitions have comprised of two or three parties; they do not systematically exclude the second largest party from the coalition; they do not have a history of secret voting ; and their coalitions are formed with a set of policy objectives to follow. In the United Kingdom, since 1945 and with the exception of the Lib-Lab pact, it is governed by a single generally cohesive party who hold the majority in the House of Commons. As a result, it also is far more stable than Italy and is an important aspect when comparing the three nations' headships.
There are a number of important powers which the British Prime Minister holds. The first important power is the power to appoint, move and dismiss ministers and appoint top civil servants. The Prime Ministers power to appoint ministers gives him a tremendous power over his party. It demands loyalty from anyone who aspires to be a member of government, wishes to be higher up within government and wish to stay their. The limit to this is that there is always a number of MPs who are not interested in advancing their career; for example, they may be ex-ministers with no chance of regaining a post, they may be soon retiring, they may have realised that they will never be chosen or they may just wish to stay where they are. The power of appointment of the top two levels of the civil service is an increasing power as the civil service becomes more open to scrutiny. It does however remain quite a small power in comparison to others.
The second set of powers is the chairing of cabinet meetings; this includes the setting of cabinet agenda, who discusses what and in which order, and the summing up of the discussion supposedly in the general mood of the meeting, although many doubt that it regularly is. Finally, the Prime Minister has control over what is recorded in the minutes. This could be argued to be the real power of the British Prime Minister, but again it has to be qualified. The Prime Minister may instigate or favour a particular policy but it is individual ministers, cabinet and cabinet committees who act on them via the departmental system. The Prime Minister possesses enormous influence over ministers and cabinet, but ultimately it is their decision to act upon them.
The third power is the Prime Ministers prerogative to decide when to ask the monarch to dissolve Parliament (within a five year limit). This allows the premier to call an election at a time when it best suits their chances of returning to power or using it as a 'big stick' to beat potentially rebellious MPs back into line - as John Major did over the ratification of the Maastricht treaty.
The forth power is the ability to independently create, change, merge or abolish the structure of government. This includes the changes in government departments such as those relating t Trade, Industry and Power since the 1970s. It also includes the reorganising of the civil service, such as the 'Next Steps' report. Again this has to be qualified, a department cannot be drastically altered because the leaders doesn't like it, reasons have to given for the changes, the business of government still has to be done and if (e.g.) a ministry were abolished then its' duties would have to be carried out elsewhere.
The fifth power is the Prime Ministers 'hunting licence' - the ability to be involved in whatever part of the government that is deemed important by the Premier. There are two aspects to this, firstly the Prime Minister is held as ultimately responsible for all the actions of the government. He is at the centre of the organisation and the business of government, anything which goes wrong ultimately is the Prime Ministers fault. Secondly, he is in the unique position of seeing 'the big picture' - overviewing general policy. These two, when combined, and with the individual ministers in the knowledge that it is the Prime Minister with ultimate responsibility allow this to occur.
The sixth power is the prime ministers role of being the first ambassador for Britain, for things such as visits by other leaders, G7 conferences and other summits such as the forthcoming Inter-Governmental Conference (IGC). This gives him some level of autonomy over other ministers in negotiating 'Britains position' with little or none of their influence. This again can be qualified in that the Prime Minister must keep to the confines of what their party will find acceptable and be ready to ratify in Parliament, the example of the Maastricht treaty where it became necessary to threaten dissolution of Parliament, is an obvious example of where the Prime Minister could be said to have negotiated a treaty that was not going to be accepted by a necessary amount of Members of Parliament.
The final power is the Prime Minister is seen as the principle spokesman for the government, either by public speeches or interviews by the media. This enhances the Prime Ministers image. The ability to influence the "flow of government publicity and......by a well-judged television interview or perhaps by the ability to win and retain the support of important newspaper editors and proprietors" can promote their power in relation to other ministers and the party.
The powers of the Netherlands are far more narrow than in the United Kingdom. If we compare directly Britain as already described with the Netherlands, it is simple to see how much weaker the Dutch Prime Minister is. The first power described was the ability of the British Prime Minister to appoint and dismiss ministers. "In the Netherlands the Prime Minister has little or no influence on the composition of his own cabinet." He may help in deciding who in their own party forms the ministerial team, but compromises with other parties in the coalition must be struck and their right to independently appoint their ministers to allocated positions is recognised. A Parliamentary Inquiry Commission after the Second World War refused to recognise any Prime-ministerial claim to dismiss a member of Cabinet. The second part of this power relating to the civil service does not occur in Holland.
The Dutch Prime Minister does chair the Cabinet meetings but in a very different way to that of their British counterpart. The Dutch leader can set the agenda, however in practice, the Prime Minister can only delay a proposal by a minister due to the highly formalised nature of Cabinet meetings. The Ministers regularly vote to decide the outcome of a discussion, the Prime Minister having the casting vote if decisions are tied, it is more usual in the event of a tie for the discussion to be postponed until another solution can be found. In times when the Prime Minister does sum up, he will do so in the true light of what has been argued, not as in the British system where the leader can sometimes sum up to favour their own ideas rather than a true reflection of the discussion.
The Dutch Prime Minister can only persuade (not request or demand) the Monarch a dissolution of Parliament "at the end of a regular Parliamentary term, or where there is a clear cabinet crisis" Their is no power of dissolution for electoral gain.
The Dutch Prime Minister has no power to independently alter the structure of government any where as easily as in the United Kingdom. The main changes have occurred due to cabinet decisions, not the Prime Ministers; these include the altering of the Prime Ministers office in 1938 which allowed the Prime Minister to sit in cabinet without representing one of the departments (usually the Prime Minister was minister for finance or internal affairs). In 1939 P.M. Colijn formed the small 'department of general affairs' which serves as the Prime Ministers office. During the war this office was replaced by a larger war office but soon went back to normal at the end of the war.
The Dutch Prime Minister is the guardian of 'general governmental policy', however, this is more of a co-ordinating role rather than the British 'ultimate responsibility'. The Dutch Prime Minister has overviewing powers to help co-ordinate, "he remains a mediator, a conciliator, an arbitrator at most: he still is no initiator"
The power of foreign ambassador is also more restricted than in Britain. The Prime Minister negotiates at international meetings but only according to strict guidelines.
"During the summer of 1990 several proposals for administrative and political reform were discussed..... One suggestion, to give the Prime Minister more room for manoeuvre when representing the country at international summits, immediately prompted a threat of resignation by the minister of Foreign Affairs, a fellow party member and close political associate of the Prime Minister."
This shows not only the limits on the Prime Minister in international affairs but also how territorial ministers can be about any form of 'meddling' in their affairs by the Prime Minister.
The increased media attention has led to a weekly press conference and television interview since the 1967-71 cabinet. This is argued to have increased the Prime Ministers power. It firstly shows that the Prime Minister is involved in a range of topics rather than just a chairman. This system has been used to present cabinet with a 'fait accompli' which gives the Prime Minister a small degree of autonomy, although it is not often on important issues or reprimands from ministers would occur.
The Italian Prime Minister holds a similar amount of power to that of the Dutch premier. If a comparison with Britain is again done, it becomes clear how weak the Italian leader also is. The selection of ministers is severely controlled by a number of factors. The first is the make up of the coalition - with each party competing for the maximum influence possible. The 1948 constitution allows the head of government to nominate ministers but in practice this rarely occurs. Approximately half of the government is formed by coalition parties of which the individual parties nominate their representatives and the Prime Minister is largely obliged to accept them. Similarly, the Prime Minister must distribute posts among the many factions of the majority party (until 1992, the Christian Democrats - DC), calculated precisely "in accordance with the rules laid down in the so called Cencelli Manual." Which distributes power amongst the factions of the DC party, the individual factions would then appoint representatives to the positions.
Similar to Holland, the Italian Prime Minister has no constitutional right to dismiss ministers, furthermore, he cannot allow them to resign in protest to the Prime Ministers actions. Essentially, the Italian Prime Minister does not possess any authority to create departments; his ultimate responsibility is the same as the Dutch where he must keep the coalition together. The Italian Prime Ministers role is to ensure "the unity and consistency of the political and administrative programme by promoting and co-ordinating the activity of ministers." (Italian Constitution, Article 95). They have "little authority with which to assert their own preferences in the decision-making process" and certainly no hunting licence.
The Italian Prime Minister receives some personal prestige from meeting other national leaders, attending international conferences and receiving media attention; but these do not make him any more powerful because of his lack of power in the first place. Foreign autonomy and media attention in Britain and Holland consolidates the Prime Ministers other powers. As Italian Prime Ministers have so little power, it is hard to consolidate them.
Whilst it is true that each power has limitations which are as important as the power itself in analysing. It is also true that Holland and Italy have so few powers that it seems unnecessary to compare them any further than has been done.
It seems that if a person were of an activist disposition, the job which is most desirable is the one which can enact the most change. The one where it is possible to enact the most change within the system is the one which possesses the most power and influence over other political actors. Out of the three headships studied here, the one which is therefore most desirable is Britains', second is Hollands' and thirdly is Italys'.
Together with everything already discussed, how the job is attained and lost, how long a leader can be expected to be in power and how much power each office holds. The final consideration is how much policy can the Prime Minister initiate. In the British system, it is expected that the Prime Minister should lead, they have the power, some would argue obligation to set the 'direction of government'. That is provide the broad agenda with which policy is formulated within. Post war Prime Ministers have taken special interest in defence and foreign policy; the economy; and national security; often taking decisions on policy alone, although usually after consultation.
In the Netherlands, policy agenda is created during the coalition building process, the premier can influence it during this period. The Prime Minister is not expected to initiate policy, and he is forbidden to issue directives to a minister. It is common in the Dutch system for ministers to consider their department their own and not subject it to 'overview' by other ministers or the Prime Minister. The principle way in which the Prime Minister can make a difference is through skilful arbitration and co-ordination, even so, this does not allow a high degree of initiating policy.
In Italy, the Prime Ministers "primary task is to keep the coalition together." He can exert influence over a policy only if he can devise a set of general policy guidelines, obtain ministerial agreement and then use existing instruments to implement the policy, "rapidly, efficiently and accurately." This occurs rarely, firstly because it is hard to implement all three stages of the requirements and secondly power is so dispersed through the institutions to prevent any on individual from having such a significant impact, thirdly there is rarely enough time in Italian politics except for 'crisis management.'
The British Prime Minister can be described as "Primus Inter Pares" although it is quite clear that under this analysis, it is more Primus than Pares. The Dutch Prime Minister seems to be fairly described as "Not Just Chairman, Not Yet Chief." The Italian Premier can be equally fairly described as a political caretaker trying to deal with frequent crises and only in power for a short time. A person of an activist disposition who wished to make a change within the respective systems would undoubtedly choose Britain for the reasons given above. The British Prime Minister is the most powerful within its own system in terms of amount of power and ability to make a change to the system. The Dutch system is similar in power to the Italians' but due to the shortness of time in power, the Italian Prime Minister is weaker. To further sum up, the British ministers serve under the Prime Minister, Dutch Ministers serve with their Prime Minister, and Italian Ministers serve with their Prime Minister, briefly.
Bibliography.
Andeweg, R.B. The Dutch Prime Minister: Not Just Chairman, Not Yet Chief? In Jones, G.W (ed) West European Prime Ministers. passim
Coxall, B and Robins, L. Contemporary British Politics: An Introduction. Macmillan. Hampshire. 1990.
Elgie, R. Political Leadership In Liberal Democracies. Macmillan. Hampshire. 1995.
Hine, D and Finocchi, R. The Italian Prime Minister.
In Jones, G.W (ed) West European Prime Ministers. passim
Jones, G.W (ed) West European Prime Ministers. Frank Cass. London. 1991.
King, A. The British Prime Ministership In The Age Of The Career Politician. In Jones, G.W (ed) West European Prime Ministers. passim.
Lijphart, A. The Politics Of Accommodation. California Press. 1975.
Shell, D and Hodder-Williams. Churchill to Major. Hurst and Company, London. 1995.
Rose, R. Presidents And Prime Ministers. American Enterprise Institute. Washington DC 1980.
Weil, G.L. The Benelux Nations. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. USA. 1970.
