However structuralists have argued that mass political movements in Germany were on the rise and did in fact influence politics. The power the Kaiser has was overwhelming because he didnt have to answer to neither the reichstag or the bundesrat, he ultimately has complete utter control over domestic and foreign policy. This would suggest that Wilhelmine Germany was an authoritarian state under the kaisers rule, but many historians such as Wehler suggested his own version of the argument which states that Wilhelmine Germany was in fact shaped by the elites (junkers) and the army which simply controlled the Kaiser from the shadows. In this essay i will discuss these interpretations offering the view that Wilhelmine Germany was an 'authoritarian' state under the rule of elites and ultimately the kaiser. Kaiser Wilhem II was an unpredictable, intelligent man with a poor judgement, hardly the kind of person you would give almost unchallenged political powers.
To what extent is it reasonable to describe modern British prime ministers as presidents in all but name? Few, if any, now doubt that the office of prime minister dominates the British political system. As long as the holder of that office is not faced by too many limiting factors, such as a small parliamentary majority or a divided party, the British system has moved away from the traditional ‘cabinet government’ model to a ‘prime ministerial’ model. We argue that the system has now become ‘presidential’. * PMs perform most of the functions of a head of state: The prime minister has come to be, effectively though not legally, the head of State, the leader of the nation, irrespective of party allegiance.
More dominant figures such as Thatcher and Blair have capitalised heavily on both strength of their personality and their parliamentary majorities. The creation of a more developed policy unit in Downing Street is effectively creating a "Prime Minister's Department". However it can be argued that the prime minister such as Tony blair, has not got a chance of effectively being a president, for example he prefered to dominate foreign and international affairs. The individuals of the UK, could argue that instead of focusing on other countries such as Pakistans, Afghanistan, he should of helped the UK more, improving and making it a better place to live in. An example of where this is present is, he distanced himself from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office so cut himself off from civil servants that could have questioned his views.
Due to the increasing presidential style of recent prime ministers and the party loyalty of the executive one can consider Parliament’s control of executive power minimal. However, due to the development of independent bodies surrounding Select Committees and the delaying of legislation by the House of Lords it can still be argued to be effective. The government usually has an overall majority. This is due to our voting system of FPTP which gives preference to the two main parties, normally giving them majorities (and increasingly large ones) as opposed to coalitions and minority governments which are produced through other voting systems such as AV in Scotland and Wales. Although we are currently in a coalition the government still has a majority through the combination of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
Every American citizen knows about their constitution and they are proud of it. The British may be proud of the queen and other aspects of our history, but we have no constitution to identify with. The third argument is the most important. This is the dangerous shift of power towards the prime minister and the government. It is happening because the powers of the prime minister are not well defined and mostly contained in unwritten conventions which are a mystery to most people.
Indecisive people can pass on their responsibilities and “pass the buck,” and advisory people can propose their concepts and lobby for acceptance, but the President can ultimately turn to nobody else. Presidents must make the hard decisions. It is a heavy mantle to bear on those presidential shoulders. It is lonely at the top. President Johnson’s “wise men” possessed depth in their areas of expertise beyond that of the President, who was a master mover of legislation to accomplish domestic social programs but very much out of his league in military matters and international relations.
One is to score him firmly as America’s chief executive. The other is typical view of the president only as a politician. From the Machiavellian perspective, Bush’s primary goal was to increase his power, rather than to confront America’s problems – to maintain the appearance of leadership while exhorting his position. Since taking office George W has been confronted with many new tests, including an unsure economy and global climate change. On the other hand, George W was very scrupulous as a politician.
This is also seen today as our own governments try to control us by political propaganda and fabricated news, which is also seen in the novel. They censor what we see, what we believe, our past and our future. They misinform the public by manipulating and tweaking the truth to support their own personal agenda. Just as the Party lied about how the war against Eastasia and Eurasia was going, our media lies about similar subject
The relationship then between the media and politicians according to Daniel Chandler, ‘The media and politicians have a love/hate relationship’. This is due to the fact that the politicians require the media to spread the word about their work. However this is also a relationship where the media requires politicians to satisfy the audiences’ interests of political issues ranging from results of general elections to every day political opinions regarding current events such as the terrorist attacks in Pakistan recently. There is also a belief within the political camp that the way the media portrays events is to their own beliefs. This is especially seen with newspapers.
With reference to the source, describe two limitations on prime ministerial power. (5 marks) Prime ministerial power has strengths as well as limitations. One of the limitations to prime ministerial power is that the members of cabinet may turn against the Prime Minister, as happened in 1990 to Margaret Thatcher. The cabinet’s support for the prime minister is conditional on the prime minister being popular and successful. If he is not successful or popular, he will not have the cabinet’s support, making it harder for him to control the cabinet, therefore making his job as prime minister harder.