Abstract
This paper compares the practice of holding prime ministers to account in four case studies: Australia, Canada, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. Using text analysis, as well as research on prime ministerial responsibilities, it investigates oral questions asked in parliamentary procedures where prime ministers are questioned together with ministers (Question Period in Canada and Question Time in Australia) versus procedures where they are questioned individually (PMQs in the United Kingdom and Oral Questions to the Taoiseach in Ireland), and explores the degree to which they are questioned for matters that are within their remit. It argues that the practice of prime ministerial accountability is decisively shaped by procedural features such as whether written notice is required for questions, as well as by the broader role of the questioning mechanism in the political system, and less by the collective or individualised nature of questioning.
Highlights
Prime ministers wield considerable authority and visibility in parliamentary democracies, yet their powers and responsibilities are scarcely defined
To what degree are they questioned about matters for which they are personally responsible? Do different parliamentary questioning mechanisms provide adequate scrutiny of prime ministerial responsibilities and decision-making, or do they leave accountability gaps? Understanding how this process of parliamentary accountability plays out is important for several reasons: above all, the extent to which political leaders are held to account for their actions and decisions is a crucial component of democratic politics; and political scientists studying parliaments, as well as practitioners looking at executive scrutiny, have long held an interest in the quality and effectiveness of accountability mechanisms and processes
Drawing on research on prime ministerial responsibilities, as well as quantitative and qualitative analysis of parliamentary questions, this paper investigates the practice of holding prime ministers to account in four case study countries: the United Kingdom and Ireland, where individualised parliamentary questioning mechanisms are used, and prime ministers are questioned alone; and Australia and Canada, where questioning mechanisms are collective, and prime ministers are questioned together with ministers
Summary
Prime ministers wield considerable authority and visibility in parliamentary democracies, yet their powers and responsibilities are scarcely defined. This tension between the collective authority of the government, the individual authority of ministers, and prime ministerial authority is central to parliamentary democracies. We would expect prime ministers to be questioned on a wide range of issues. This requirement to engage publicly with various topics is, doubtless, a way of ensuring that they are challenged to justify government decisions. Do different parliamentary questioning mechanisms provide adequate scrutiny of prime ministerial responsibilities and decision-making, or do they leave accountability gaps? Exploring whether questioning mechanisms achieve the aim of scrutinising prime ministers for their responsibilities constitutes a first step towards mapping the quality and effectiveness of prime ministerial accountability
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: The British Journal of Politics and International Relations
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
