For How Long Can Boris Still Hang On?
By: Ruben De Bruin
Tags: UK Politics, Conservative Party, Brexit, Accountability, Parliament

The importance of the principle of ministerial responsibility and its relevance to today’s political climate.

Recent Developments in UK Politics

Boris Johnson’s tenure as Prime Minister has seen a drastic turn for the worse over the last month of 2021 that has placed himself and his government in the crossfire over recent political developments. Namely, the conduct of senior politicians in his government has resulted in a myriad of resignations, controversies and outright disregard of their duty to the public in a time of national crisis. The myriad of mistakes have caused a flurry throughout Westminster with Brexit minister Lord Frost being the latest government member to have resigned due to a disagreement over Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s strategy — if it can be called a strategy — on ‘getting Brexit done’. To name but a few, other recent events have ranged from the misjudgement in the lockdowns over the Covid-19 pandemic, a failed attempt at bringing ex-MP Owen Paterson to justice over the breaking of lobbying rules, the failure to provide accurate accounts of the funds for the refurbishment of the 10 Downing street flat, the more recent controversies over the direct breach of the very rules the government itself imposed on the public to reduce the spread of Covid, the MP revolt in Commons over covid restrictions and the disastrous response to the rapid Afghanistan withdrawal (described by Tom Tugendhat, the Conservative chairman of the foreign affairs select committee, as “the biggest foreign policy disaster since Suez”). The government’s adequacy of handling matters such as the pandemic and Brexit fall outside the scope of this paper due to the complexity of assessing the government’s efficacy on policy issues that fall into the realm of ambiguity due to their size, length of completion and legitimate conflicting political interests. But, the recent errors and misjudgements made by the government in the run up to Christmas demonstrate the type of incompetence that fall under a more nuanced and sensitive principle of accountability in politics.

A Sliding Scale

The principle of ministerial accountability is a convention under British politics that recognises the need for democratically elected politicians to pay heed to their ethical obligations of integrity, honesty and trust towards the public. The only way for such an accountability structure to function properly is for those in power to answer to the very actions called into question. Boris Johnson has survived crisis after crisis in previous weeks. Whereas some commentators have called the Prime Minister’s political survival mere “luck”, in actuality these scandals demonstrate a sliding scale in government accountability and ministerial responsibility. When in the past similar events would call for the outright resignation of a Minister, or even Prime Minister, the current trajectory in politics seems to form part of an erosion of the constitutional conventions that are traditionally seen as foundational democratic safeguards enforced by uncodified and politically accepted rules under the Ministerial Code. What this means for the trajectory of our current understanding of political accountability is therefore of particular concern. Undoubtedly, one would assume that accepting responsibility as a minister for the actions of their departments, and resigning when things go seriously wrong even if they were not personally at fault, forms part and parcel of serving at the higher echelons of public service. What the origins of the principle of ministerial accountability are and the way in which the above developments affect our foundational understanding of the functioning of our democracy will be discussed in more detail below.

The Westminster Parliamentary System

In the Westminster Parliamentary system most government functions are guided by constitutional convention and the actual distribution of power may be markedly different from rules prescribed in formally written documentation found in civil law countries such as the Netherlands, Denmark and Switzerland. In particular, individual ministerial responsibility is a fundamental constitutional principle in this parliamentary system and postulates that minsters are responsible to Parliament and their country for their individual conduct as well as the proper functioning of their assigned ministry. The nature of Britain’s unwritten Constitution places it in a unique position to adapt and change according to the particular societal context of the time. Contrary to written constitutions in civil law countries, British Constitutional law draws its constitutional authority from a variety of primary and secondary legislative sources. Throughout its history the Constitution’s legitimacy has been premised on the enforcement of so-called Constitutional Acts of Parliament and the adherence to parliamentary conventions. As conventions under the UK Constitution are important rules of Parliamentary procedure they safeguard the accountability of ministers towards Parliament and thereby, ultimately, to the people. In particular, they are informal and uncodified procedural agreements that are followed by the institutions of the state. The importance of and reason for this article’s focus on constitutional conventions is that due to the UK’s lack of a single overarching constitutional document, unwritten conventions are still of vital importance in upholding adequate democratic safeguards in the event of any public wrongdoing. As will be shown below, recent developments have also demonstrated that their non-legally binding nature call into question their suitability and efficacy at a time of outright disregard by ministers for the political consequences of their departments’ actions.

What is Ministerial Accountability?

As alluded to above, ministerial accountability is a constitutional convention that ministers are accountable to Parliament for the actions of government. Being accountable to Parliament means that ministers have to explain and provide information on what is happening in their area of responsibility. Most importantly the principle of accountability hinges on the duty to take remedial action or apologise for failures. Ultimately it also means an expectation that they should resign if something has gone seriously wrong. Secretaries of State are accountable for the whole of their department, whereas junior ministers will generally answer questions in Parliament for their area of responsibility. As a result, the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible for failures and mistakes. For clarification purposes, individual ministerial accountability is a separate (yet simultaneously related) principle from collective cabinet responsibility, which is that “decision reached by the cabinet or Ministerial Committees are binding on all members of the Government.” Although a written form of Britain’s constitution can be traced back as far as the formation of the Magna Carta in 1215, today’s unwritten nature of the constitution has enabled its enforcement to evolve over time through the establishment of traditions that are influenced by history, culture, repetition and necessity. The principle of ministerial accountability developed during the 19th and 20th centuries as government departments and the role of ministers, separate from civil servants, became more distinct. Since 1997 the convention of ministerial accountability has also been set out in the Ministerial Code which states that “Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account for the policies, decision and actions of their departments and agencies.”

The underlying principle and foundation of our democracy underpins this principle as ministers are democratically elected and drawn from Parliament. As ministers and as direct representatives of the people they are the ones making important decisions affecting a cross-section of society, and should therefore primarily be answerable to Parliament. What sets the Westminster model — and other commonwealth jurisdictions — apart from codified principles of constitutional accountability is that precedent and convention are the primary anchors for safe harbouring the public from (un)intentional political misjudgement or malevolence. Simultaneously, as the principle of accountability is not set out in law the potential of any slippage in ‘voluntary’ resignations by ministers in the advent of any form of misjudgement makes the very fact of it being an uncodified principle a reason for concern. It is precisely the latter that this article aims to address.

Ministerial Accountability and its Relevance to Democracy

Throughout the course of the 19th and 20th centuries the principle of ministerial accountability has served at the forefront of holding those at the heart of government accountable for their own and their department’s actions. In April 1982 Lord Carrington, the then foreign secretary, resigned because Margaret Thatcher’s government had failed to foresee Argentina’s invasion of the Falkland Islands. So did two of his junior ministers, Humphrey Atkins and Richard Luce. Their resignations do not denote their guilt per se, but their resignation served a purpose. As one commentator argued:

“They were acts of contrition. They forestalled bitter recriminations. They enabled the government to move on, and the country to unite behind the dispatch of the task force that recaptured the Falklands and restored Britain’s honour.”

It is precisely the ability for a government to “move on” and focus on the issues that demand attention that form the vital components of a functioning and orderly democracy. Just like election cycles provide the public with the ability to cast their vote on whether they (continue to) support incumbents or not, does the principle of ministerial accountability provide a similar expediency in the democratic process by removing those from office that simply do not stand up to the requirements necessary for the job they were assigned to. As a nation’s policy interests and political priorities change over time so do their views on the representatives they appoint to fulfil their demands. The principle of accountability forms part of the wider principle of collective (cabinet) responsibility and therefore applies to all of those in government, not just the Prime Minister. Fast forward to the present day and we can see the erosion of this accountability structure during those vital and chaotic days when the NATO-led multinational force in Afghanistan withdrew their troops. Dominic Raab, who then occupied the post Carrington once held (Foreign Secretary) had to be “dragged back to London from the beach of Crete” after failing to anticipate the speed of the Taliban’s advance. It is argued that he prematurely withdrew most Foreign Office officials vital to the safeguarding of and operational support for the evacuation mission of desperate Afghan allies of the West seeking to escape. Such disregard for the department’s duty and its misjudgement regarding the appropriate allocation of resources at a time of crisis ought to call into question the competency and operational veracity of one of the most vital organs of state.

What are the Implications?

Since the Afghanistan withdrawal the government, in particular the Prime Minister, has been subjected to other controversies alluded to at the start of this article. With only a few exceptions, neither the Prime Minister nor anyone else in the upper echelons of this government have been held accountable for their departmental or personal actions. During the time of Cameron and May’s leadership, public outcry about purported government inaction and their resulting resignations were still based on the failure to deliver concrete policy promises — notably Brexit (who guessed it). However, the recent political fiascos surround a more dramatised and pernickety version such as the 10 Downing street purported “lockdown party”, and Boris Johnson’s supposed failure to disclose matters in relation to his 10 Downing Street flat’s refurbishment according to the Ministerial Code. It falls outside the scope of this article to assess the extent to which these actions, and the government’s response, deserve the criticism they have been subjected to. But, it is clear that the Prime Minister’s ability to circumvent any form of accountability sets a precarious precedent for the public’s ability to oust incumbent officials and elect those that prize ability, integrity and experience above mere political survival at all costs. Furthermore, the fact that the current political landscape is dominated by controversies that in previous political cycles would cause those within the same party to utter disgrace at fellow party men and women, demonstrates how far in the political abyss we have managed to come today.

Belief Matters

Even if ministers do not tend to resign at every instance if their departments preside over a serious policy error, the belief that it could happen matters. Namely, such a belief, according to Well, Grube and Rhodes, is important because it guides behaviour, “even if the lines of when and what the consequences should be are never clear, and often rely on the willingness of the prime minister to keep the minister on.” What becomes strikingly clear is that governments must develop rules and practices that allow for certainty and consistency in decision-making. In particular, they must be able to balance good politics with good policy and be able to “maintain cohesion both inside and between political parties.” By asserting blame on others within the government or asserting no knowledge on the purported act in question — such as Boris Johnson’s accusation of having “no personal knowledge of any party” — denotes dysfunction within government itself. It sets aside the notion of “collective responsibility” of the cabinet that ensures solidarity and cohesion amongst departments, and the protection it offers by collectivising blame. Recent developments all too clearly show that factions within parties and governments themselves indeed make a government seem dysfunctional, if not in fact. Arguably, with the chances of restoring the government’s level of competence and trust within the public’s eye being drastically low, maybe the mere recognition of ministerial responsibility will at least restore a sense of decency, dignity and accountability that is expected of those representing the people at the highest level of public service.