Q.3. “The growth of cabinet system has practically resulted in the marginalization of the parliamentary supremacy.” Elucidate. [UPSC 2024 GS P-2]

The statement that “the growth of the cabinet system has practically resulted in the marginalization of the parliamentary supremacy” highlights how the evolution of the cabinet system of government has, over time, concentrated power in the hands of the executive, thereby reducing the actual influence of the parliament. This shift can be observed particularly in parliamentary democracies like India and the UK, where the Westminster model of government is followed. Below is an elucidation of how this phenomenon has unfolded.

Cabinet System and Parliamentary Supremacy:

Theoretical Basis:

• In theory, under a parliamentary system of government, the parliament is supposed to hold supreme authority, with the executive (cabinet) being accountable to it.
• The cabinet, composed of ministers from the ruling party or coalition, is collectively responsible to the parliament. The parliament, representing the people, has the power to question, control, and, if necessary, dismiss the government through a vote of no confidence.

Role of the Cabinet:

• The cabinet is the key decision-making body in the government, responsible for framing policies, managing administration, and running the country. It is headed by the prime minister.
• Ideally, the parliament checks the powers of the executive through debates, questions, and motions.

However, in practice, as the cabinet system has grown and evolved, it has often resulted in a shift of power toward the executive, undermining parliamentary supremacy.

Reasons for the Marginalization of Parliamentary Supremacy:

1. Concentration of Power in the Cabinet:

• The prime minister and the cabinet hold substantial executive authority. Over time, this concentration of power has increased, especially as modern governance requires quick decision-making and coordination across various ministries.
• The prime minister has emerged as a dominant figure, and, in many cases, has control over cabinet decisions. This can marginalize the parliament, as the cabinet’s decisions often become final without substantial parliamentary debate or scrutiny.

2. Party Discipline:

• Strong party discipline has become a hallmark of parliamentary democracies. Members of the ruling party or coalition are expected to follow the party line, which is often dictated by the cabinet or prime minister.
• This reduces the independence of members of parliament (MPs), particularly those belonging to the ruling party, as they are less likely to oppose or question the cabinet’s decisions for fear of political consequences or party sanctions. As a result, parliamentary debates and discussions become more of a formality.

3. Majority Rule and Reduced Opposition Impact:

• In a system where the government enjoys a majority in parliament, the parliament’s role is often reduced to merely endorsing the decisions of the executive. The whip system ensures that MPs from the ruling party vote along party lines, making it difficult for the parliament to act as an effective check on the executive.
• The opposition can voice its concerns but, without sufficient numbers, their ability to influence policy or hold the government accountable is limited.

4. Delegated Legislation:

• The growth of delegated legislation has also contributed to the marginalization of parliamentary supremacy. The executive is increasingly empowered to make detailed rules and regulations under broad frameworks set by laws passed by the parliament.
• The parliament often lacks the time or resources to scrutinize these detailed regulations, leading to an expansion of executive authority without sufficient oversight.

5. Control over Legislative Agenda:

• The cabinet has control over the legislative agenda. It determines which bills are introduced and prioritized in parliament. This means that most of the legislation debated and passed by parliament is initiated by the executive, reducing the legislative function of individual MPs and the parliament as a whole.
• The executive also uses tools like ordinances (in India), which allows it to bypass parliamentary approval temporarily, further strengthening the executive’s role in the legislative process.

6. Decline in Parliamentary Debates and Scrutiny:

• As the cabinet grows stronger, the quality and depth of parliamentary debates have often declined. Parliamentary sessions are frequently marked by disruptions, walkouts, and a lack of serious scrutiny of government policies.
• The increase in the use of money bills, guillotine procedures, and voice votes in some parliamentary systems has also diminished meaningful debate and the opportunity for parliament to exert its supremacy.

7. Expansion of Bureaucracy and Executive Machinery:

• The executive bureaucracy has expanded significantly, making the cabinet reliant on experts, technocrats, and administrators for policy formulation and implementation. This bureaucratic dominance has, in some cases, led to less parliamentary control over executive actions, as the details of policy implementation are left to the administrative machinery rather than being discussed in parliament.

---

Indian and British Contexts:

India:

• In India, the cabinet system has led to the prime minister’s office (PMO) gaining significant influence over both the executive and the legislative functions of government. The PMO’s growing authority has raised concerns about the concentration of power and diminished parliamentary scrutiny.
• The ordinance-making power of the executive has been frequently used, bypassing the legislature’s role in debating and passing important laws.

UK:

• In the UK, while the House of Commons is theoretically supreme, the prime minister and the cabinet wield significant influence over legislation and decision-making. The practice of collective responsibility and strong party discipline often results in the executive pushing its agenda through parliament with minimal opposition.

---

Conclusion:

The growth of the cabinet system has, in practice, led to the marginalization of parliamentary supremacy. While parliament remains the cornerstone of democratic governance and holds formal supremacy in theory, the increasing dominance of the executive, particularly the prime minister and the cabinet, has shifted power away from parliament. Factors like party discipline, control over legislative agendas, and delegated legislation have all contributed to this phenomenon, reducing the effectiveness of parliament as a check on the executive’s powers.