CONTROL OF LEADERSHIP IN ENGLAND

It will be helpful to compare this situation with the method by which England has worked out the problem of leadership and control of leadership.

The real executive head in the English government is the prime minister.  The king appoints the prime minister, but he always chooses for the position the recognized leader of the political party that is in the majority in the House of Commons (which corresponds to our House of Representatives).

The prime minister having been appointed, he then selects the other members of his cabinet, who are to be the heads of the executive departments, and who are also members of Parliament.

The prime minister and the other members of the cabinet have seats in the House of Commons, contrary to the practice in our country.  They also take the lead in legislation, for most of the important bills considered in the House of Commons are planned and introduced by the cabinet.  So the executive and legislative branches of the English government are not separated as in our country.  The same group of men manage the service organization and lead in planning the legislation that makes the service possible.

It sometimes happens, however, that the cabinet introduces a measure which, after discussion, a majority of the House of Commons rejects.  This means that on this question the cabinet no longer represents the majority in the House.  Then one of two things happens.  Either the cabinet resigns in a body to make way for a new cabinet that does represent the majority; or the prime minister asks for A general election for members of the house of Commons. If at this election a majority is again returned that is opposed to the cabinet, it means that the cabinet no longer leads the people, and it resigns.  If a majority is returned in support of the cabinet, it means that the old House was no longer representative of the people, and the old cabinet retains its leadership.

This system gives the English people more direct control over their government than we have in our country; it is very much like the method of recall that is used in some of our states.  At the same time, it assures a real executive leadership within the government, a leadership that is both responsive and responsible to the people.

GROWTH OF IRRESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP

Not only does our Constitution fail to provide clearly for responsible leadership within the government, but our system of “checks and balances,” our party system of government, and the organization and rules of Congress, all taken together, have tended to confuse our leadership, and to impose upon us an irresponsible leadership, outside of the government as outlined by the Constitution.  To understand this it will first be necessary to examine the organization of Congress.