'The domestic power of a UK Prime Minister exceeds the domestic power of a US President.' Discuss

The roles tht both executives have to carry out are resources of power, however both must convert these into actual power. One of the crucial resources of power that The Prime Minister and the President have is the power of patronage. In the UK the Prime Minister appoints his colleges to cabinet posts and also has the power to dismiss them. This can do a lot to determine the political fortunes of the MP's in the Prime Ministers own party and therefore increases his/her power base significantly as s/he can surround themselves with supporters who will advocate their policies. However, in practice there are always senior figures in any party who virtually select themselves for ministerial office and others whom it would be imprudent for any Prime Minister to exclude. Therefore the appointment power available to the UK executive is slightly hindered. The US President also has the power of appointing officials. He is able to make government appointment and therefore can fill top management positions with individuals committed to his agendas. However, the Presidents choices must be approved by the Senate significantly limiting his power. Although the Constitution is silent on the matter of dismissal, the Federal courts have granted the President power to remove people from office too.

In the UK, the monarch sits above the entire political process and in theory has many prerogative powers which could limit the Prime Minister. However, the Monarch rarely if ever intervenes in political decisions and many prerogative powers have in fact been passed down to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has the right to advise to Monarch on many public appointments made in the name of the crown. These are key appointments to a host of public bodies and as many depend on finding favour with the Prime Minister, it increase their power base and is a formidable aspect of Prime Ministerial power.

Another role of the UK Prime Minister is to respond to questions and engage in debate in the House of Commons. The performance of the Prime Minister here can have a great effect on party morale and public opinion and therefore as a by-product, can hugely influence the amount of power that the Prime Minister has. The British executive also chairs Cabinet meetings and is expected to interpret the results of Cabinet discussions. By doing this and controlling the agenda, the Prime Minister is able to dominate by emphasising policy s/he wants to push and putting less weight on issues that are less important to them. This therefore is a significant asset to the Prime Minister in gaining power. In contrast the US President does not have the luxury of this power however, in America the cabinet is merely a collegial body, not the collective apex of decision-making that it is in Britain.

One source of power that the UK Prime Minister has compared to that of the US President is that of strict party discipline. In this sense the executive can dominate the assembly, knowingly they have party support. This is not seen as extensively in the US system and therefore it is far harder for the US executive to dominate Congress. He may try to influence them but he can by no means dictate to them. This constraint is furthered by the department heads following their own agenda and not the President's. The President's power can potentially be further limited by whether his party has a majority in the House and the Senate.

The US executive does have some legislative power, predominately the power of veto. This power makes the President the most important single legislative leader as no bill can be passed if he prevents it. However, the Senate can override this veto if there is a 2/3 majority so this power does have a limit to it. The Constitution states that the President must 'take care that laws are faithfully executed.'5 The office of President is an office of delegated powers and therefore '"executive power" must be understood as the power to execute faithfully the laws as they are adopted by Congress.'6 Although this does not necessarily doom the presidency to weakness, it does mean the President is not free to discover sources of executive power completely independently of the laws of Congress.

The UK Prime Ministership is fairly malleable as the Constitution is largely 'customs and practices'. Very few are explicitly specified therefore the executive is in a position to arrogate themselves new tasks and functions at ease. In Britain, the Cabinet is theoretically the most important decision-making body in British central government but invariably it is the Prime Minister who has taken all the important decisions. However, the Cabinet still plays an important role and a 'would-be' powerful Prime Minister can take advantage of the porousness and informality of the constitution but they must also reckon at all times with the Cabinet's undoubted constitutional superiority. Due to this it is vital that the executive has the support of their Cabinet if they are to exercise all the power that is available to them.

A substantial limitation on the power of a UK Prime Minister is the fact that they can be dismissed at any time if their party gives them a vote of no confidence. Although this is extremely rare, it means that the Premiere must support polices that his party favours. In contrast, the US President can only be disposed of by impeachment by Congress for 'high crimes and misdemeanours'7

The length of term of the American Presidency is set in the Constitution and the executive has no say over it. In contrast, the British Premier can dissolve parliament and call a General election when s/he chooses. This can be a huge advantage to increasing power over the opposition if done at the right time. However, misjudgement on the behalf of the Premier can be devastating both personally and to the party as a whole.

It is clear that both the US President and the UK Prime Minister have specific powers. However, whereas the power of the Prime Minister is very flexible and can vary depending on the individual in office, the presidency does not depend on the person who holds office; The strength of the Presidency has become institutionalised. The President is granted powers directly from the Constitution but he have other resources of power which the can use. However, the ability of the President to build the supporting coalitions needed for him to capitalise on potential power has been made more difficult by the proliferation of interest groups, the weakening of political parties and the dispersion of power in congress. The increase in judicial activism constrains the President's capacity to manage the Government. In contrast, the British Prime Minister has very few formal constraints therefore s/he can do what they can get away with but ultimately they must command party loyalty and the extent and nature of their power depends on the loyalty and the support of his/her parliamentary colleagues. Therefore due to the flexibility in the British system, it seems that the British Prime Minister has more potential power than the US President where the paradox of presidentialism is executive weakness amid the appearance of strength.

Bibliography

Forman, F. N, Mastering British Politics, Hampshire: The Macmillan Press Ltd, 1991.

Hauge, Rod et al., Comparative Government and Politics, Hampshire: The Macmillan Press Ltd, 1998.

Jones, Bill, British Politics Today, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1987.

Jones, Bill et al., Politics UK, London: Pearson education Ltd, 2001.

Lowi, Theodore, American Government, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1992.

Miroff, Bruce et al., The Democratic Debate, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1998.

Young, Ralph et al., Introducing Government, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993.

R. Hauge, M. Harrop & S. Breslin Comparative Government and politics, (Hampshire: The Macmillan Press Ltd, 1998), p. 204

2F N Forman, Mastering British Politics (Hampshire: The Macmillan Press Ltd, 1991), p. 179

3 Forman, Mastering, 179

4 T. Lowi, American Government (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1992) p. 133

5 Lowi, American, 126

6 Lowi, American, 126

7 Hague, Comparative, 203