Sir Robert Walpole, the first British Prime Minister. This post was created by accident; not by constitution. The King George was not effective; the king asked Robert Walpole to manage the government. That is how the title came into effect, 'the prime minister.'
The title ‘prime minister’ was originally a term of abuse rather than a description of an official role. It implied that an individual subject had risen improperly above others within the royal circle, and had echoes of a political institution imported from France, England’s great enemy.
The Institution of Prime Minister
“How the power of Prime Ministry grew up into its present form it is difficult to trace precisely.”
The so-called ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1688 helped produce a new power-balance within the English constitution. Monarchs became more dependent upon Parliament to obtain tax revenues and pursue their favoured policies, while the House of Commons was establishing its dominance over the House of Lords. This changed constitutional structure created a potential opening for a politician who could deliver control of Parliament for the monarch. One man in particular, operating from the position of a Member of the Commons, not the Lords, managed to exploit this opportunity: Sir Robert Walpole.
In the decades that followed the fall of Walpole it was not always clear whether there was a Prime Minister at any given time, because the post was not yet firmly established in practice nor officially recognised. But other political leaders built upon the methods Walpole pioneered, usually acting in the role of Prime Minister while officially holding the post of First Lord of the Treasury, as he had. From the late-eighteenth century the office of Prime Minister gradually became accepted and then entrenched as a permanent fixture of British government.
In 1803, during the gap between his two premierships, William Pitt the Younger told Lord Melville of the need for an ‘avowed and real Minister, possessing the chief weight in the Council, and the principal place in the confidence of the King’.
By 1805 The Times newspaper was beginning to use the phrase ‘Prime Minister’ in this sense and around this time it began to be employed in parliamentary debates.
he office of Prime Minister was widely accepted as a political reality by the mid-nineteenth century. But official acknowledgement of this development was slower to take place. In 1878 William Gladstone – who served as Prime Minister on four separate occasions – remarked:
‘upon the whole, nowhere in the wide world does so great a substance cast so small a shadow; nowhere is there a man who has so much power, with so little to show for it in the way of formal title or prerogative’.
The British premiership has gradually taken on a more official existence over the last three centuries, but remains largely informal in character, with many of its powers matters of convention rather than law. In the words of the Cabinet Manual, published in October 2011, ‘The Prime Minister has few statutory functions but will usually take the lead on significant matters of state’. Where once the very existence of the premiership was a subject of controversy, more recently the manner in which the office is used has become the main focus of discussion.
From Walpole’s time onwards observers have frequently accused either individual Prime Ministers or the office itself of excessive dominance within government. In 1806 the incoming Prime Minister, Lord Grenville, described his immediate predecessor, William Pitt the Younger, as having led
‘a Cabinet of cyphers and a government of one man alone…[a] wretched system’.
“The head of the British Government is not a Grand Vizier. He has no powers, properly so called, over his colleagues.”
“a Prime Minister who is the senior partner in every department as well as president of the whole, who deals with all the business of government, who inspires and vibrates through every part, is almost, if not quite, an impossibility.”
few Prime Ministers “except in wartime and rarely then, could dictate to their Cabinets.” unless they consulted with senior ministers. It is unlikely that this clash of views about the premiership will ever fully be resolved.
Another development in staffing involved the emergence of the permanent Civil Service as the core of the office of Prime Minister. In the early days of the premiership there was no clear division between political and administrative staff. Senior ministers – including premiers – received assistance from individuals known as ‘men of business’, who combined functions later associated with junior ministers with those that would today be attributed to civil servants. By the mid-nineteenth century there emerged a permanent, impartial Civil Service which, by the late 1920s, became the most important source of support for the Prime Minister within No.10, comprising his or her private office of official private secretaries. From the 1960s onwards this trend was to some extent reversed with the appearance of special advisers, who combined party political and civil-service functions. They were similar to the ‘men of business’ of the eighteenth century.
________________________________________________
It is the most ineffective system of government. Three hundred years ago, Americans sensed these defects and they built a new political system.
Do we need to still continue with the British system? It's time to build a new system for modern democracy.
The current system is ideal for Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh. Certainly not for Narendra Modi.
In practical sense, when you reach a cliff, all you need to do is, just stay still; no action; just engage in simple balancing act.
When you try to engage in action, naturally, you will fall from the cliff. People standing around you, just watching all your chaotic actions and patiently waiting for your fall.
You reached the top; you cannot go any higher.
You have only two options; just stay quiet as Manmohan Singh for the next ten years; or fall down.
With Delhi election, all traditional politicians of Delhi made you to taste the rotten politics.
With Jammu & Kashmir, again those traditional politicians brought you further down.
Threats do not work in American democracy only. Threats are real and do work effectively in Indian democracy.
Anna Hazare without any constitutional responsibility; without any constitutional accountability had brought down the previous government.
Outside comments; irresponsible and provoking comments made by unconstitutional persons do have major impact on governments, in this democracy system.
In short, there is no Executive Branch in Indian democracy system. It has only two branches:
- Legislative Branch
- Judicial Branch
Nobody takes it serious about Pranab Mukerjee branch. It is just a decoration.
Fixing this defect should have been the top-most priority of Narendra Modi. It is now obvious, Narendra Modi had no knowledge about the defects in the system.
Now, who could join hands with Narendra Modi to fix the defects in Indian Constitution.
- BJP - 282
- Congress - 44
- Others - 219
Certainly, BJP & Congress will never authorize any change in the Constitution.
The others would support for new constitution.
Narendra Modi could work 'Others' and transform the politics of India.
India needs to be transformed from politics into democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment