Introduction

In parliamentary systems, the prime minister is chosen by the parliament, who in turn
appoints the executive heads of government departments.  The heads, or ministers, of the
most important of these departments constitute the cabinet.  Together, the prime minister,
the cabinet, and the remaining ministers outside the cabinet, are commonly referred to as
“the government.”  This concept paper will highlight the differing roles of the individual
ministers in the operations of the government at the executive level, and the degree to
which the ministers are accountable to the legislative branch or parliament.
 

I. Who is Chosen

For the most part, the prime minister enjoys considerable discretion in appointing the
heads of the government departments.  When selecting from members of the majority
party serving in parliament, the prime minister attempts to balance the various factions
within his party by placing representatives from each faction in government posts.
 

II. The Role of Individual Ministers

The cabinet meets weekly to discuss major issues and set government policy.  The
cabinet is responsible for the operations of departments as organs of the executive, and
for coordinating the work between the executive and the parliament.  The ministers are
responsible, or politically accountable, both individually for the conduct of their
departments, and collectively for government policy.

Individual responsibility:  Individual responsibility means that a minister provides the
authority under which his ministry operates, so the minister must bear the consequences
both of his own conduct and the conduct of his department.  Normally, all actions taken
by civil servants are on the nominal instruction of the minister.  Thus, a minister is
expected to defend the acts of his civil servants, unless such actions are reprehensible or
something of which he disapproves.  In the latter case, the minister is not obligated to
defend what he clearly believes to be wrong.  However, because ministers can be
personally involved only in high-level policy decisions or matters that are particularly
controversial, day-to-day decision-making resides within the discretion of the civil
servants.  It is common that, when questioned in parliament, a minister learns for the first
time of decisions taken in his name.


The minister is responsible for creating the policy of his department, as well as the
policy’s implementation.  He represents the department within the parliament, answers or
responds to criticism of the department, introduces department bills, and represents the
department before committees.  If the minister is persistently evasive in responding to
criticism of ministerial actions, then his and the government’s reputation will suffer.

In practice, the concept of individual responsibility does not really have adverse
consequences for a minister confronted with a scandal within his department if the minister
retains the support of the prime minister.   Whether the minister survives politically
depends upon the severity of the scandal.  Rarely do ministers resign because of mistakes
made by officials within their departments.  The prime minister must evaluate whether it
would be more damaging for the government for the minister to resign or to stay in his
position.  However, the prime minister has less drastic options than asking for the
minister’s resignation.  For example, he can appoint the minister to another post, or
reshuffle the cabinet.  Of course, simple incompetence takes so much time to expose that
usually the minister no longer holds his position by the time he becomes a political liability.
In those instances where a minister does resign for department abuses or policy failures,
his resignation usually does not result in the downfall of the entire government.

Collective responsibility:  Collective responsibility refers to the practice of the cabinet
ministers, as a body, to accept responsibility for decisions of the entire cabinet.  This
doctrine also means that the cabinet presents a united front to the parliament and to the
public, thereby depriving critics of the government of the opportunity to exploit any
dissent by pointing out that individual cabinet members disapprove of government policy.
This tradition, however, severely restricts an individual minister’s ability to express his
personal opinion on a particular issue.  While the minister can register his dissent within
the secret cabinet deliberations, once the government decides on a particular policy,
publicly the minister will be constrained to support and defend the policy.1  If the minister
feels that he cannot support government policy or course of action, his only choice is to
resign, whereupon, at least in Great Britain, he is allowed to make a personal statement in
the House.  The prime minister may in some circumstances allow dissent,2 especially if it
will do the party less harm than ministerial resignations and press reports of dissension
within the party.  Non-cabinet ministers, however, are not accorded this same flexibility.
If a non-cabinet minister expresses a view contrary to government policy, it is almost
certain he will be dismissed.

In those rare instances where the parliament disagrees with government policy, and votes
against government action, the doctrine of collective responsibility requires the entire
government to resign and new elections to be held.

III. Council of Ministers vs. Prime Minister

Although technically considered a first among equals, the prime minister exerts substantial
influence over the cabinet, largely because he can appoint and dismiss cabinet ministers.
Because he determines the agenda for cabinet meetings, the prime minister plays a major
role in setting the tone for the entire government.  He also determines the collective
decision of the cabinet, without a formal vote being taken.  The prime minister holds this
predominant position secure in the loyalty of his party in parliament to support and pass,
without much discussion or dissent, his legislative program.  There do exist, however,
some informal constraints on the prime minister’s power over the cabinet ministers.  For
example, if a particular legislative initiative meets with strong opposition in the cabinet, the
prime minister may be forced to abandon the proposal for the sake of cabinet, as well as
party, unity.  Practically speaking, there is a considerable amount of give and take in
cabinet deliberations.  A prime minister who consistently ignores his cabinet’s advice,
however, and operates in a heavy-handed fashion, is going to find himself without the
political support necessary to stay in power.

Submitted by CEELI Liaison Kim Meyer
American Bar Association (ABA) Central and Eastern Law Initiative (CEELI)
Rr. Ismail Qemali, No. 30
Tirana, Albania
Tel:  355 42 34624
Fax:  355 42 34950
E-mail:  [email protected]