The Trials of Tony

A friend of mine in the US wrote to me yesterday asking about Tony Blair, and whether his announcement of a retirement date will turn him into a lame-duck prime minister.

The comparison with the American political system is certainly worth thinking about. American presidential elections are run in early November, but the actually swearing in doesn’t occur until mid January the following year. Should the incumbent or his party lose the election, there are a few months while his remains in office but has, one could argue, lost the popular mandate to rule. He becomes what is known as a “lame duck president”, and use of his executive powers will be viewed by some, especially the incoming administration, to be based on rather murky authority.

Of course, when the incumbent was sworn in four years previously, he was given a mandate to govern until his successor was sworn in, in other words, for four years and non three years and ten and a bit months. As a result, referring to these last few months as the lame duck presidency is more about appearance than legality, but in reality this transitional period often has a feeling of “the king is dead, long live the king”.

Anyway, to return to Prime Minister Blair. After several weeks of rather fevered if banal speculation by the press, Tony Blair announced his retirement for May 31st 2006. In the meantime, does he become a lame duck prime minister?

To answer this question, the differences between a Prime Minister and a President need to be recognised. All governments are divided into three branches, the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judiciary. At its simplest, the Legislative branch of government devises laws, the Executive implements laws, and the Judiciary interprets those laws. In the American system federal government, these three branches are Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court. Each is independent of one another but also regulated by and to some extent moderated by the others.

A Prime Minister is different. He is appointed by the Legislative branch as their de facto leader by being the de jure leader of the party that commands the support of the majority of the legislators. In Britain, this means the Prime Minister doesn’t, as such, have a popular mandate to personally rule, but that his party has that mandate, and provided his party wishes him to lead it, he becomes Prime Minister. This is known as the Parliamentary System. Technically, Queen Elizabeth is the Executive, and laws are dispensed in her name, but in practise she acts entirely as guided by her Prime Minister, hence the Prime Minister has the powers of the Executive if not the actual authority.

The relative advantages and disadvantages of the two systems have intrigued polticial historians and constitutional law professors for decades. Briefly put, parliamentarianism is seen to allow swifter implementation of laws because the Legislative and Executive act always act in unison and never in opposition. Also, because a Prime Minister only has power while his party supports him, such governments rarely become authoritarian regimes. An oft-quoted statistic is this: of all the post-war governments set up in Third World countries, about two thirds of the ones with a parliamentary system made the transition to democracy. Not a single Third World country with a presidential system has done so.

On the flip side, the people don’t get to elect their leader directly, as they do in a presidential system. In addition, the history of many parliamentary governments in some countries (such as Germany, Italy, and Israel) have been colourful, to say the least, often dependent on coalitions allowing minority parties to often acquire influence out of all proportion to their electoral success.

So Tony Blair remains the leader of his party, and provided he is supported by them, his power remains intact. The idea that he is a lame duck president is interesting but fundamentally flawed. However, power isn’t everything. Prime Ministers govern through power and patronage. While his power remains solid, his patronage will become decreasingly valued. While he can still offer ministerial posts or chairmanships of influential committees, many aspiring young politicians will be looking for a job under the Next Guy rather than this one, on the theory that Tony might only be able to offer them work for another few months. In this sense, at least, Prime Minister Blair is a lot weaker than he was, and even if not quite a lame duck, he’s certainly a duck that’s lost a few feathers and can’t quack quite so loudly as before.

Neale Monks