"The growth of cabinet system has practically resulted in the marginalisation of the parliamentary supremacy." Elucidate. (UPSC GS 2 2024/10 Marks)

Introduction:

The growth of the cabinet system in parliamentary democracies has had a significant impact on the traditional concept of parliamentary supremacy. This shift has led to the marginalization of parliamentary supremacy in many countries.

Argument for the Marginalisation of Parliamentary Supremacy due to the growth of cabinet system

• Concentration of Power in the Executive:
  
  • The Cabinet, led by the Prime Minister, exercises immense control over legislative functions, reducing Parliament’s role to merely approving executive decisions. This shift dilutes the system of checks and balances.
  • Example: In the UK, Prime Ministers like Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair used strong executive authority, overshadowing parliamentary debate.
• Party System and Whip Mechanism:
  
  • The dominance of political parties and their control through the whip system forces members to toe the party line, limiting independent decision-making in Parliament.
  • Example: In India, MPs are bound by the party whip during voting, reducing the role of Parliament as a forum for debate.
• Decreasing Role in Law-making:
  
  • Much of the legislative work happens within the executive, with Parliament merely formalising decisions. This leads to a decline in legislative scrutiny.
  • Example: In India, major economic reforms, like the 1991 liberalisation, were executive decisions with limited parliamentary involvement.
• Delegated Legislation:
  
  • Increasing reliance on delegated legislation means that Parliament delegates legislative powers to the executive, reducing its supremacy in law-making.
  • Example: The ordinance-making power in India allows the executive to bypass Parliament in urgent situations.

Argument Against Marginalisation of Parliamentary Supremacy due to the growth of cabinet system

• Parliamentary Oversight and Committees:
  
  • Despite the strong cabinet system, parliamentary oversight through various standing committees and financial committees continues to exert control over the executive.
  • Example: In India, the Public Accounts Committee scrutinises government expenditures, ensuring executive accountability.
• Debates and Question Hour:
  
  • Parliamentary sessions provide a platform for debates, questions, and motions, where the executive is held accountable for its actions.
  • Example: The Question Hour in the Indian Parliament allows members to seek clarifications on government policies, ensuring checks on the cabinet.
• Collective Responsibility:
  
  • The principle of collective responsibility ensures that the Cabinet is responsible to Parliament, and can be dismissed by a vote of no-confidence.
  • Example: In India, a no-confidence motion can oust the entire Cabinet, showing that parliamentary supremacy is intact.
• Legislative Powers of Parliament:
  
  • Parliament still holds key legislative powers, including the passage of constitutional amendments and key legislations, often requiring parliamentary debate and consensus.
  • Example: The passage of the Right to Information Act in India involved significant parliamentary input and was not solely an executive decision.

Conclusion:

The growth of the cabinet system has had a profound impact on the traditional concept of parliamentary supremacy. As power becomes increasingly centralized in the executive branch, the role of the legislature is diminished, leading to a marginalization of parliamentary supremacy in many countries. It is important for parliamentary democracies to find a balance between a strong executive and a robust legislature to ensure the continued relevance of parliamentary supremacy.