A* A Level Politics Essay Edexcel Paper Two: Executive and Parliament
14 views 0 purchase
Course
Unit 2 - Governing the UK
Institution
PEARSON (PEARSON)
Evaluate the view that executive dominance means parliament has little influence over the legislative process (30).
This response scored high Level 5 (A*) and is a balanced essay, offering both sides of the debate and justifying the stronger argument.
Evaluate the view that executive dominance means parliament has little influence over the
legislative process?
To a moderate degree, it can be concluded that executive dominance means parliament has
little control over the legislative process. Although MPs can choose to defy the PM in the
commons, and the House of Lords (HOL) has played an increasingly significant role in
blocking government bills, this is overall outweighed by the more compelling evidence that
suggests the use of whips, patronage, and low legitimacy of peers are effective means of
executive domination and means parliament has limited influence over the legislative
process.
One argument to suggest executive dominance does not limit parliament’s influence over
legislation is how MPs have a representative duty to their constituents which they
sometimes fulfil. FPTP creates a direct link between an MP and constituency with only one
representative; paired with the rise of social media and ways for constituents to contact
their MP, this means MPs are theoretically well-connected to the views of those they
represent and have a representative duty to reflect this mandate in parliament which can
challenge executive dominance if these views clash. Many of the 44 MPs who voted against
HS2 were those whose constituents were directly affected by the route in the north; near an
election, MPs may also be more sensitive to their constituent’s views and be more willing to
challenge government legislation that could risk their seat, such as the 40 tory MPs who
have threatened to rebel against the Criminal Justice Act 2024, leading to the bill being
delayed by government. This demonstrates how the executive does not have complete
control over parliament as there are some cases where members of the commons can
prioritise their constituents as opposed to executive control.
However, there is more compelling evidence to suggest executive dominance in the form of
patronage and use of whips prevails duty to constituents, and therefore executive
dominance does limit parliament’s influence over legislation. Although FPTP provides a
direct constituency link, it also creates highly illegitimate representatives elected by a
minority of their constituents, leading to the issue of a passive electorate, many of whom
are unaware of their MP or have become apathetic due to not being able to elect minor
parties, suggesting that overall MPs do not have a strong connection with their constituents
and do not feel a strong obligation to represent their views. Thus, the allure of patronage
and the presence of whips enables the executive to encourage conformity and party loyalty,
with Sunak’s recent appointment of Cameron as foreign sec- despite not being a member of
HOC- displaying the extent of patronage powers that can bypass parliamentary norms and
be applied to encourage loyalty, also witnessed by Johnson’s honours list rewarding some of
his most loyal allies. This evidence of patronage and the ways in which it can be used to
tightly regulate MP votes suggests that the executive and patronage matters more to most
MPs than a duty to their constituents, reflected in the rarity of rebellions for government
legislation even with contentious bills like the Rwanda bill. Therefore, although MPs can be
representative of their constituents which suggests the executive dominance does not
always mean parliament is ineffective and lacks independence as one may expect in an
‘elective dictatorship’, this is outweighed by the control they exert via patronage and whips
as well as the weak mandate from constituents; to a moderate degree, it can be concluded
that executive dominance does limit parliament’s influence over legislation.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller evelynstanfordbusiness. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $9.37. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
