The System of Government
Britain is a democracy, yet its people are not, as one might expect in a democracy, constitutionally in control of the state. The constitutional situation is an apparently contradictory one. As a result of an historical process, the people of Britain are subjects of the Crown, accepting the Queen as the head of the state. Yet even the Queen is not sovereign in any substantial sense since she receives her authority from Parliament, and is subject to its direction in almost all matters. In short, she 'reigns' but does not rule. Technically, if confusingly, British sovereignty collectively resides in the three elements of Parliament: the Crown, and Parliament's two chambers, the House of Lords and the House of Commons.
This curious situation came about as a result of a long struggle for power between the Crown and Parliament during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In 1689 Parliament won that struggle, because it controlled most of the national wealth. It agreed to allow the Crown to continue to function within certain limits, and subject to Parliament's control. No constitution was written down either then or since, and the relationship between Crown, government, Parliament and people - and their respective constitutional powers - has been one of gradual development in three vital respects:
parliamentary 'sovereignty'; an independent judiciary; and consolidation of the rule of law. Various elements of what is usually considered 'the constitution' appear in different laws and conventions, but they are not specified as such, The state - itself sometimes called the Crown -operates on precedent, custom and conventions, and on unwritten rules and assumptions. Operating on precedent, custom and common sense is a very British arrangement, and the British have traditionally felt uncomfortable with a constitution based either on logic or theory.
The Crown
The reigning monarch is not only the head of state but also a symbol of the unity of the nation. The monarchy is Britain's oldest secular institution, its continuity for over 1,000 years broken only once by a republic that lasted a mere 11 years (1649-60). The monarchy is hereditary, the succession passing automatically to the oldest male child, or in the absence of males, to the oldest female offspring of the monarch. By Act (or law) of Parliament, the monarch must be a Protestant. Succession is automatic on the death of the monarch, confirmed later by a formal coronation ceremony. The coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in 1953, for example, took place over a year after she became queen.
In law the monarch is head of the executive and of the judiciary, head of the Church of England, and commander-in-chief of the armed forces. (However, since 1689, the monarch's sovereign powers have been formally limited by the idea that national sovereignty resides in 'the Crown in Parliament' -the idea that the Crown is only sovereign by the will of Parliament.
The remaining powers of the monarch are basically to summon, suspend until the next session and dissolve Parliament; to give royal assent to legislation passed by Parliament; to appoint government ministers, judges, officers of the armed forces, governors, diplomats, and bishops of the Church; to confer honours such as peerages and knighthoods; to remit sentences passed on convicted criminals; and finally to declare war on or make peace with an enemy power. In practice, of course, with the exception of a few honours she is free to decide herself, the monarch discharges all these functions on the direction of the government In most matters of state, the refusal of the Queen to exercise her power according to the direction of her Prime Minister would risk a serious constitutional crisis.
Nevertheless, the function of the monarch is politically important. For as someone who reigns but does not rule, the sovereign separates the 'magic' of sovereignty, publicly visible in many ceremonies, from the power of the executive head of state. This contrasts with executive presidential systems of government. Away from the public gaze, the monarch plays a more practical role. The Queen is visited regularly by her Prime Minister to receive an account of Cabinet decisions and to be consulted on matters of national life. Since 1952 the Queen has given weekly audience, as it iscalled, to 11 Prime Ministers, some of whom have highly valued these meetings.
Whitehall - the seat of government
'Her Majesty's Government' governs in the name of the Queen, and its hub, Downing Street, lies in Whitehall, a short walk from Parliament. Following a general election, the Queen invites the leader of the majority (or largest, in "the absence of an overall majority) party represented in the Commons, to form a government on her behalf. Government ministers are almost invariably members of the House of Commons, but infrequently members of the House of Lords are appointed. These are at a disadvantage since it is in the Commons that the government is expected to explain its conduct of affairs. All government ministers, even the Prime Minister, who are members of the Commons, continue to represent the parliamentary 'constituencies' which elected them. Unless the government is a coalition - the last of these was formed during the war years 1939-45 - governments today are drawn solely from one political party. But this has not always been so. During the nineteenth century leading politicians were far freer to follow their own convictions or ambitions rather than party discipline.
Most governments consist of about 100 ministers, but the essential core is the Cabinet, the 20 or so most senior ministers invited by the Prime Minister to belong to it. Cabinet government demands, collective responsibility and confidentiality. Within the Cabinet the Prime Minister is meant to be first among equals. In theory this encourages balance and prudence in both policy and action. In practice the Cabinet principle can give rise to tension. While a Prime Minister must give strong leadership, he or she must allow for each minister to exercise responsibility within their field and should encourage collective decision-making on controversial issues, particularly ones beyond the responsibility of one ministry.
In fact Prime Ministers have much more power than first among equals. They enjoy undisputed political leadership. Ministers must obey their will, or persuade the Prime Minister of their own point of view. If a clash of wills cannot be resolved, the minister must resign. In 1989 the Chancellor of the Exchequer (responsible for finance) suddenly resigned after persistent rumours about the Prime Minister's overbearing manner in Cabinet. In explaining his resignation, he gave a classic definition of the Cabinet principle: 'For our system of Cabinet government to work effectively, the Prime Minister of the day must appoint ministers that he or she trusts and then leave them to carry out the policy. When differences of view emerge, as they are bound to do from time to time, they should be resolved privately and, wherever appropriate, collectively. The ex-Chancellor made this statement to the House of Commons, for all ministers are accountable to it. Although not the case on this occasion, once the confidence of a majority of his or her colleagues has been lost, a Cabinet minister has no choice but to resign. Because of the enormous increase in government business, all senior government ministers - most of whom have the title of Secretary of State - have junior ministers (Ministers of State or Parliamentary undersecretaries) to help with the workload. They are all subject to the rules of collective responsibility and must not disagree publicly with government policy.
Although government is essentially political, it depends upon a permanent body of officials, the Civil Service, to administer the decisions of ministers, and to keep the wheels of government -in its broadest sense - turning. The Civil Service, employing almost 500,000 people, is expected to discharge its responsibilities in a politically impartial way. Civil servants must be as loyal to an incoming government as to the outgoing one, however much as private individuals they may be pleased or dismayed at the change of government. Those civil servants wishing to stand for Parliament must first resign from the Civil Service.
The heart of the Civil Service is the Cabinet Office, whose Secretary is the most senior civil servant at any given time. The responsibilities are considerable, including the proper and smooth running of the whole Civil Service as well as serving ministers collectively in the conduct of Cabinet business and ensuring the coordination of policy at the highest level. In each ministry or department the senior official, or Permanent Secretary, and his or her immediate subordinates, undersecretaries and assistant secretaries, remain ^ responsible for assisting their minister in, the implementation of government policy. The Permanent Secretary does not really have a counterpart either in Europe or the United States.
ln practice the implementation of policy is a two-way process - cleverly portrayed in the 1980s in two famous satirical television series, Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister- in which alongside genuine cooperation, there is also a permanent trial of strength between the political will of the minister and the concern of civil servants to minimize departures from known and trusted methods of government. Both sides are tempted to view the other as a potential obstacle to good government, but both also moderate the dangers implicit in one or other party enjoying unchallenged powers. In the words of one ex-minister, the Civil Service is 'a beautifully designed and effective braking mechanism. It produces a hundred well-argued answers against initiative and change.
There is a strong tradition of loyalty on the part of civil servants towards their ministers. A good example is recalled by a minister, who having rejected very strong advice from his (unusually) female permanent secretary, instructed her to draft the policy paper he wished to put, to Cabinet. She produced a paper that was 'terse, clear, strongly argued and very convincing' for a policy with which she did not agree. As he recalled, 'She had had her say, the internal argument was over... from now on it was her job to help me persuade my colleagues of its wisdom. 'A minister and his or her senior civil servants will be the strongest of allies in fighting for the interests of their department, or ministry, against competing ones, particularly in the allocation of the financial budget.