The Executive and Parliament | Edexcel A-Level Politics
Updated: 2 days ago
For Specification 9PL0
Edexcel A-Level Politics | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time:Â 75 minutes
The Executive and Parliament A-Level Politics revision examines one of the central power struggles in UK government: whether Parliament can effectively hold ministers to account, or whether the government normally dominates Parliament. You need to understand the mechanisms Parliament can use to scrutinise the Executive, the advantages governments possess when trying to control the Commons, and why the balance of power changes according to political circumstances. This develops your earlier work on parliamentary scrutiny [Backbenchers and parliamentary scrutiny] and executive power [Structure, role and powers of the Executive].
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Explain how Parliament can hold the Executive to account.
Examine the strengths and limitations of select committees, backbenchers, the opposition and ministerial questions as mechanisms of accountability.
Explain how the Executive can attempt to dominate Parliament.
Define and apply the concept of an elective dictatorship.
Analyse how party discipline, parliamentary majorities and political circumstances affect the relationship between Parliament and the Executive.
Assess whether the balance of power between Parliament and the Executive has changed.
Revision Notes đź“š
The relationship between Parliament and the Executive
The Edexcel specification requires students to examine three connected issues:
the influence and effectiveness of Parliament in holding the Executive to account
the influence and effectiveness of the Executive in attempting to dominate Parliament
the extent to which the balance of power between the two has changed.
The relationship is complicated because the UK does not have a complete institutional separation between the Executive and legislature.
The Executive includes the Prime Minister, Cabinet and other government ministers. Ministers normally sit in Parliament, and a government must retain the support of the House of Commons if it is to remain in office.
This produces two competing tendencies:
Parliamentary accountability: The Executive is expected to explain and defend its actions before Parliament.
Executive dominance: A government with a disciplined Commons majority may be able to control much of Parliament's activity and pass most of its programme.
The balance between the two is therefore not fixed.
What does it mean to hold the Executive to account?
To hold the Executive to account means requiring ministers and government to explain, justify and defend their decisions and actions.
Parliament can scrutinise:
government policy
ministerial decisions
legislation
government departments
the Prime Minister
the conduct of ministers
Accountability does not necessarily mean defeating the government.
A minister who is required to answer questions, justify a policy, provide information or respond to a select committee investigation is being subjected to parliamentary accountability even if the government ultimately retains its policy.
This means you should distinguish between:
Scrutiny:Â investigating and questioning government.
Influence:Â encouraging government to alter its behaviour.
Control:Â actually preventing government from acting or forcing it to change course.
A mechanism may be effective at scrutiny without giving Parliament decisive control.
How Parliament holds the Executive to account
Parliament has several mechanisms through which it can scrutinise government. These build directly on select committees, the opposition and questions to ministers [Select committees, opposition and ministerial questions].
Select committees
Select committees investigate particular areas of government activity. Departmental select committees scrutinise the work of individual government departments.
They can:
conduct inquiries
question ministers and other witnesses
request information
gather evidence
publish reports
make recommendations
The 2023 Edexcel mark scheme identifies their ability to establish inquiries, produce reports and request persons, papers and records as important strengths. It also notes that committees can operate in a relatively bipartisan way.
Why select committees can be effective
Unlike highly partisan exchanges in the Commons chamber, committee scrutiny can be detailed and sustained.
Members can develop greater expertise in the department they scrutinise. This allows them to examine policy in more depth than may be possible during a short parliamentary question.
Reforms associated with the Wright reforms also increased the significance and independence of select committees.
The 2023 mark scheme highlights:
greater independence
elected committee chairs
increased expertise
a higher public and media profile.
This means select committees can expose weaknesses in government policy and create pressure for ministers to explain their decisions.
Limits of select committees
Their powers should not be exaggerated.
Select committees:
cannot normally force the government to accept their recommendations
have limited time and resources
often investigate matters after decisions have already been taken
are most influential when members are able to work across party lines
The 2025 mark scheme also notes that governments may ignore committee recommendations and can sometimes frustrate attempts to obtain evidence or witnesses.
A strong judgement is therefore:
Select committees are among Parliament's strongest mechanisms for detailed scrutiny, but their ability to investigate is greater than their ability to compel government action.
Prime Minister's Questions and ministerial questions
Ministers must regularly answer questions in Parliament.
This includes:
Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs)
departmental ministerial questions
urgent questions
These mechanisms allow MPs to demand explanations from ministers in public.
PMQs is particularly visible because it places the Prime Minister directly before the House of Commons and allows the Leader of the Opposition and other MPs to challenge government.
Strengths of question time
Questions can:
force ministers to respond publicly
expose weaknesses or inconsistencies
raise issues rapidly
generate media coverage
enable opposition and backbench MPs to place pressure on government
The 2024 mark scheme identifies the increased use of urgent questions as one development that has strengthened the ability of MPs to hold government to account.
Urgent questions may be especially important where MPs believe the government should explain a recent development immediately rather than waiting for normal question time.
Weaknesses of question time
PMQs can be highly partisan.
The 2023 and 2025 mark schemes note limitations including:
an adversarial atmosphere
ministers not necessarily providing full answers
government backbenchers asking supportive questions
limited opportunity for detailed scrutiny.
This means PMQs may sometimes generate more political confrontation than detailed accountability.
A useful comparison is:
PMQs and ministerial questions | Select committees |
Immediate and highly visible | Detailed and sustained |
Can gain significant media attention | Can develop specialist knowledge |
Allows direct challenge to ministers | Allows extensive questioning and evidence gathering |
Often partisan | Can be more bipartisan |
Answers may be brief or evasive | Investigations can be much deeper |
Creates political pressure | Can produce detailed reports and recommendations |
Neither mechanism is automatically "best". Their effectiveness depends partly on what type of accountability is being considered.
The Official Opposition
The opposition has a central parliamentary role in challenging the government.
The Official Opposition can:
question ministers
challenge the Prime Minister
debate government policies
criticise legislation
present alternative arguments
use its privileged position in Parliament to expose weaknesses in government policy
The strength of the opposition matters because accountability becomes more difficult if the opposition is divided or ineffective.
The 2023 mark scheme notes that the Official Opposition has funding and a privileged parliamentary position from which to hold government to account. However, it also suggests select committees may sometimes provide stronger scrutiny, especially where the government has a large majority or the opposition itself is weak or divided.
This means the effectiveness of opposition scrutiny is politically variable rather than constitutionally fixed.
Backbench MPs
Backbenchers are MPs who do not hold government or opposition frontbench positions.
Government backbenchers can be particularly important because they normally provide the parliamentary votes required to sustain the government.
Their role therefore connects closely with backbench influence over the Executive [Backbenchers and parliamentary scrutiny].
Backbenchers can:
question ministers
serve on select committees
debate policy
rebel against their party leadership
oppose or seek changes to legislation
use urgent questions
place pressure on ministers before votes take place
Backbench rebellion
A government with a majority depends on enough of its MPs voting with it.
If government backbenchers threaten to rebel, ministers may:
alter proposals
accept amendments
withdraw proposals
negotiate with MPs
The government does not need to suffer an actual defeat for Parliament to have exercised influence.
If ministers change a proposal because they expect to lose, parliamentary pressure has already affected policy.
The 2020 examination material used Theresa May's Brexit difficulties as an example of backbenchers and MPs becoming increasingly willing to challenge government, including the major Commons defeat of her Brexit agreement in January 2019.
Parliamentary reforms and stronger backbenchers
Changes to parliamentary organisation have strengthened the position of MPs in some areas.
The Wright reforms are particularly important.
Edexcel mark schemes identify developments including:
changes to select committees
greater independence of committee chairs
the Backbench Business Committee
greater opportunities for backbenchers to influence parliamentary activity.
The Backbench Business Committee gives backbench MPs opportunities to determine subjects for debate rather than leaving the entire Commons timetable under government control.
This matters because control of parliamentary time has traditionally been an important advantage for the Executive.
These reforms therefore provide evidence that Parliament has become more assertive.
The House of Lords and executive accountability
Parliament includes both the House of Commons and House of Lords.
The Lords can scrutinise:
legislation
government policy
ministerial proposals
One important advantage for the Lords is that the government does not normally possess the same automatic majority there that it may enjoy in the Commons.
This can make the Lords more willing to challenge government proposals.
Edexcel's 2024 mark scheme describes the lack of a government majority in the Lords as an important reason why it can provide a stronger check on government than might otherwise be possible.
However, its constitutional powers remain more limited than those of the elected House of Commons.
Understanding those limitations requires knowledge of the relative powers of Parliament's two chambers [Comparative powers of the Commons and Lords].
Votes and the ultimate parliamentary sanction
The Executive depends on maintaining sufficient support in the House of Commons.
This gives the Commons an important constitutional weapon: government cannot simply ignore the need for parliamentary support.
A vote of no confidence can ultimately threaten the government's ability to remain in office.
However, the practical strength of this weapon depends heavily on party politics.
Government MPs may criticise ministers while still refusing to vote in a way that would remove their own party from office.
This demonstrates a wider theme:
Parliament may have considerable formal powers, but party loyalty can limit MPs' willingness to use them against the Executive.
Executive dominance of Parliament
The opposite side of the debate asks whether the Executive is so powerful that Parliament cannot provide an effective check.
The Edexcel specification includes elective dictatorship as a key term within this topic.
Elective dictatorship
An elective dictatorship is:
a government that dominates Parliament, usually due to a large majority, and therefore has few limits on its power.
The term does not mean that the UK is literally a dictatorship.
It highlights the possibility that an elected government with a secure majority can dominate the House of Commons so effectively that parliamentary checks become weak.
Several features can contribute to executive dominance.
A large Commons majority
The size of the government's parliamentary majority is one of the strongest influences on the relationship between Executive and Parliament.
A government with a large majority can normally survive a substantial number of backbench rebellions without losing votes.
This gives ministers greater freedom.
By contrast:
a small majority increases the importance of individual backbenchers
a minority government must seek support beyond its own MPs
a coalition requires agreement between different parties
The relationship is therefore partly numerical.
Large majority
Likely effect:Â stronger Executive.
The government can lose some MPs and still win votes.
Small majority
Likely effect:Â stronger Parliament.
A relatively small rebellion may threaten government legislation.
Minority government
Likely effect:Â substantially stronger Parliament.
The government cannot assume it will win votes using its own MPs alone.
This helps explain why executive dominance changes between governments rather than simply increasing continuously over time.
First-past-the-post and executive dominance
The electoral system can also affect the relationship.
Edexcel mark schemes make an explicit synoptic link between First-past-the-post (FPTP)Â and executive dominance.
FPTP has often produced single-party majority governments. Where that happens, the government can normally rely on a Commons majority to pass legislation.
The 2024 mark scheme links the idea of elective dictatorship to:
the majoritarian electoral system
government control of much of the Commons timetable
party discipline imposed through the whips.
This means your understanding of First-past-the-post [First-past-the-post] can be used synoptically when analysing the Executive-Parliament relationship.
The important analytical chain is:
FPTP → possible single-party majority → disciplined government MPs → government wins Commons votes → increased executive dominance.
However, FPTP does not guarantee a large majority in every election.
Political circumstances still matter.
Party discipline and the whips
Governments rely heavily on party discipline.
Government MPs are normally expected to vote with their party.
The whip system helps party leaders organise parliamentary voting and maintain discipline.
Strong party loyalty benefits the Executive because ministers can rely on their backbenchers to support government legislation.
This can lead critics to describe government MPs as merely providing the votes needed to approve decisions already made by the Executive.
The 2025 mark scheme notes that party leaders can use patronage and the whip system to keep backbenchers in line. It also observes that the Executive normally succeeds in passing its legislative programme, especially where measures form part of the governing party's manifesto.
Limits of party discipline
Party discipline is not absolute.
MPs may rebel because of:
strong policy disagreements
constituency concerns
ideological divisions
disputes within the governing party
a weakened Prime Minister
If rebellions become widespread, the parliamentary party can become a serious constraint on government.
The effectiveness of the whips therefore depends partly on political circumstances.
Government control of the parliamentary timetable
The Executive controls much of the business conducted in the House of Commons.
This gives government an important structural advantage.
If the Executive can determine when legislation is introduced and how much parliamentary time is available, it is better placed to advance its own programme.
The 2024 Edexcel mark scheme identifies government control of the parliamentary timetable as one element supporting the elective dictatorship argument.
However, reforms including the Backbench Business Committee have reduced complete government control by providing MPs with some opportunities to determine subjects for debate.
This is a good example of how reform has shifted some influence away from the Executive without removing executive dominance altogether.
The government's legislative advantage
The Executive is responsible for initiating much of the major legislation considered by Parliament.
This connects to the Executive's legislative powers [Structure, role and powers of the Executive] and Parliament's legislative process [The legislative process].
A government with a reliable majority can therefore combine:
control over much of the Commons timetable
party discipline
control over the development of government legislation
a parliamentary majority
This gives the Executive considerable influence over law-making.
The 2025 mark scheme notes that the Executive normally succeeds with its legislative programme and uses the fact that the overwhelming majority of successful amendments are initiated by ministers as evidence of continuing executive strength.
However, apparent government success does not necessarily mean Parliament has had no influence.
Governments may change proposals in advance because ministers know that backbenchers or the Lords are likely to object.
Parliamentary influence can therefore be hidden.
Royal Prerogative powers
The Prime Minister and ministers possess important Royal Prerogative powers.
These form part of your study of executive powers [Structure, role and powers of the Executive].
The 2024 mark scheme identifies the use of prerogative powers as one argument supporting continued executive dominance because such powers may enable ministers to act without ordinary parliamentary legislation in some areas.
The key debate is therefore whether prerogative powers allow the Executive to bypass Parliament or whether political and legal checks constrain their use.
This also connects with judicial checks on Executive action [The Supreme Court], because disputes about executive authority can become subject to judicial review.
Prime-ministerial leadership and Parliament
Executive dominance may also be strengthened where political power is increasingly concentrated around the Prime Minister.
Edexcel's 2024 mark scheme identifies the argument that Prime Ministers can act in an increasingly presidential style, communicating directly with the public and reducing the importance of traditional parliamentary channels of accountability.
However, Prime Ministers remain dependent on parliamentary and party support.
A Prime Minister whose parliamentary party becomes divided may find formal powers much harder to exercise effectively.
This links directly to the balance of power between Prime Minister and Cabinet [The Prime Minister and Cabinet].
Why does the balance of power change?
The most important point in this topic is that there is no permanent answer to the question:
"Who is more powerful, Parliament or the Executive?"
The answer depends heavily on political circumstances.
Factor 1: Size of the government majority
This is often the most immediate factor.
Parliamentary situation | Likely effect on balance of power |
Large majority government | Executive generally stronger |
Small majority government | Backbenchers become more influential |
Minority government | Parliament substantially stronger |
Coalition government | Executive constrained by coalition agreement and parliamentary arithmetic |
The size of the majority does not explain everything, but it strongly affects the government's ability to win votes.
Factor 2: Party unity
A large nominal majority may be less useful if the governing party is deeply divided.
If dozens of government MPs rebel, the Executive's control of Parliament weakens.
Conversely, even a smaller majority may provide strong executive control where MPs remain highly disciplined.
Therefore:
Effective majority = numerical majority + party unity.
This is a useful analytical principle rather than a mathematical formula.
Factor 3: Strength of the Prime Minister
A politically strong Prime Minister may find it easier to maintain:
party discipline
Cabinet unity
public authority
control of the government's agenda
A weakened Prime Minister may struggle to control government backbenchers.
This means the wider study of factors determining prime-ministerial power [Prime-ministerial power: post-1997 case study] can help explain Parliament-Executive relations.
Factor 4: Parliamentary reforms
Parliament has become more assertive in some respects.
Reforms to select committees and the creation of the Backbench Business Committee have increased opportunities for scrutiny and reduced government control in specific areas.
The 2024 mark scheme identifies these reforms as evidence supporting the argument that government control of the Commons has weakened.
However, these reforms have not removed:
government control over much parliamentary business
party discipline
the importance of Commons majorities
Their effect is therefore significant but limited.
Factor 5: Political issues
Some issues generate unusually intense divisions and weaken ordinary party discipline.
Brexit is a major example used repeatedly in Edexcel materials.
Theresa May's government faced significant parliamentary resistance because:
the government lacked a secure Commons majority
the Conservative Party was divided
MPs were willing to rebel over Brexit
The 2020 examination materials emphasised the unusual scale of parliamentary resistance during this period.
However, students must evaluate whether this represented a permanent strengthening of Parliament or an exceptional political period.
The Edexcel materials explicitly raise the possibility that Brexit was a "one-off" and that stronger executive dominance could return with a secure majority government.
Changes in the balance of power since 2010
Edexcel has repeatedly assessed change over time, so students need to analyse patterns rather than treat the relationship as static.
2010 to 2015: Coalition government
The 2010 election produced a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition.
This did not create the same type of straightforward single-party executive dominance normally associated with a large majority government.
The Executive had to maintain agreement between two parties.
Parliament also became more assertive during this period, while reforms strengthened parts of parliamentary scrutiny.
This provides evidence of a movement away from unrestricted executive control.
2015 to 2017: Small majority
The Conservative government formed after the 2015 election had a relatively small Commons majority.
A small majority increases the potential influence of government backbenchers because only a limited number of rebels may be needed to threaten government proposals.
This demonstrates why the numerical size of a majority can alter the Parliament-Executive balance even where the formal constitutional powers of both institutions remain unchanged.
2017 to 2019: Minority government and parliamentary assertiveness
Following the 2017 election, Theresa May's government did not possess an overall Commons majority.
This strengthened Parliament significantly.
The period demonstrated:
extensive backbench rebellion
major government defeats
parliamentary resistance over Brexit
difficulty for the Executive in controlling the legislative agenda
Edexcel's 2021 mark scheme describes the coalition, small-majority and minority governments between 2010 and 2019 as a period in which Parliament became increasingly assertive.
This is strong evidence that parliamentary power can increase sharply when government loses control of a reliable majority.
After the 2019 election: renewed executive strength
The 2019 general election produced a substantial Conservative Commons majority.
Edexcel's 2021 material treated this as important evidence for a renewed period of executive dominance because the government was much less likely to lose ordinary Commons votes.
The 2024 mark scheme similarly describes the 2019 majority as evidence that the Executive had returned to a more dominant position.
This reinforces a central conclusion:
Changes in the Parliament-Executive relationship often follow changes in parliamentary arithmetic rather than permanent constitutional change.
What do recent examiner materials suggest?
The 2025 examiner report continued to identify the elective dictatorship debate as relevant to contemporary UK government. It noted that stronger candidates used recent evidence to examine the ability of governments with strong parliamentary positions to impose their will on Parliament.
This means it would be inaccurate to describe recent decades simply as a continuous transfer of power from the Executive to Parliament.
A better interpretation is:
Parliament has developed stronger mechanisms of scrutiny, but governments can still dominate when political and electoral conditions give the Executive a secure and disciplined Commons majority.
Has Parliament become more powerful?
Arguments that Parliament has become stronger
More assertive backbenchers
Backbench rebellions have become an important potential constraint on governments.
Ministers may have to negotiate with their own MPs before introducing or voting on proposals.
Stronger select committees
Changes to select committee organisation have increased:
independence
expertise
visibility
capacity for sustained scrutiny
Backbench Business Committee
Backbenchers gained greater control over some parliamentary time.
Urgent questions
Greater use of urgent questions has increased opportunities to demand immediate ministerial explanations.
Experience of weaker governments
Coalition, small-majority and minority governments after 2010 showed how strongly Parliament can constrain an Executive that lacks a secure majority.
The 2024 examiner material identifies each of these as relevant evidence that government control of the Commons has weakened in some respects.
Has the Executive remained dominant?
Arguments that the Executive remains stronger
Government normally controls the legislative agenda
The Executive proposes much major legislation and controls substantial parliamentary time.
Party discipline remains powerful
Government MPs normally support their party.
Majority governments can absorb rebellions
A large majority means some MPs can rebel without threatening the government's ability to win.
Ministers possess significant executive powers
Royal Prerogative and other executive powers can increase the government's ability to act.
Parliamentary scrutiny does not always produce control
Select committees may investigate government but cannot necessarily force ministers to accept recommendations.
PMQs may embarrass a Prime Minister without altering government policy.
FPTP can facilitate strong majority governments
The electoral system can convert electoral support into a Commons majority capable of sustaining executive dominance.
Together these arguments support the idea of an elective dictatorship.
Scrutiny does not equal control
This distinction is one of the most useful ways of evaluating the topic.
Parliament can be effective at:
questioning
investigating
exposing
criticising
while remaining less effective at:
defeating government legislation
forcing policy changes
removing ministers
controlling the government's agenda
For example:
Select committee investigation may produce highly effective scrutiny.
But if the government ignores the recommendations, parliamentary control remains limited.
Similarly:
PMQs may create political embarrassment.
But the Prime Minister may still retain sufficient parliamentary support to continue the policy.
Therefore, when evaluating Parliament's effectiveness, always ask:
Effective at doing what?
This gives your answer much greater precision.
Parliament versus Executive: overall comparison
Factors strengthening Parliament | Factors strengthening the Executive |
Select committees | Government control of much Commons time |
Opposition scrutiny | Party discipline and whips |
PMQs and ministerial questions | Government initiation of major legislation |
Urgent questions | Large Commons majority |
Backbench rebellions | Patronage |
Backbench Business Committee | Royal Prerogative powers |
House of Lords scrutiny | FPTP can produce majority governments |
Minority or small-majority government | United governing party |
Divided governing party | Strong Prime Minister |
No single factor settles the debate.
The balance depends on how these factors interact.
Overall assessment of the balance of power
The Executive possesses significant structural advantages over Parliament.
Government normally controls much of the Commons agenda, initiates major legislation and can rely on party discipline. Where it also has a large and united Commons majority, the argument that the UK approaches an elective dictatorship becomes much stronger.
However, executive dominance is conditional rather than absolute.
Parliament can become extremely influential when:
the government's majority is small or non-existent
the governing party is divided
backbenchers rebel
select committees expose political weaknesses
opposition pressure is effective
The period after 2010 demonstrates substantial fluctuations rather than one simple direction of change.
A strong overall judgement is therefore:
Parliament has become institutionally better equipped to scrutinise government, but the Executive normally retains the advantage when it possesses a secure, disciplined Commons majority. The balance of power changes primarily according to political circumstances rather than because Parliament has permanently displaced the Executive.
This distinction leads naturally into the wider question of who possesses political sovereignty in practice [Legal and political sovereignty].
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Executive | The branch of government centred on the Prime Minister, Cabinet and other ministers, responsible for governing and implementing policy. | Use when distinguishing government from Parliament and assessing which branch exercises power in practice. |
Parliament | The UK legislature, consisting of the House of Commons, House of Lords and the Crown. | Use when explaining scrutiny, legislation and accountability. |
Elective dictatorship | A government that dominates Parliament, usually because it has a large majority, and therefore faces few limits on its power. | Use when assessing whether majority governments can exercise excessive control over the Commons. |
Backbenchers | MPs or peers who do not hold government or opposition frontbench positions. | Use when analysing parliamentary rebellion, scrutiny and the government's ability to maintain party discipline. |
Select committees | Parliamentary committees that investigate and scrutinise areas of government activity. | Use when evaluating how effectively Parliament can hold ministers and departments to account. |
Hints from the Examiner Reports đź’ˇ
Examiner hint: Focus precisely on the relationship named in the question. In 2024, stronger answers addressed whether government control of the Commons had changed in recent years. Weaker responses drifted into different debates, such as Prime Minister versus Cabinet or the courts versus government.
Examiner hint:Â Do not write a chronological history of governments. The 2021 examiner report found that stronger answers either organised their argument thematically or used different governments specifically to analyse changes in executive dominance. Simply describing what happened under each Prime Minister limits AO2 and AO3.
Examiner hint:Â When comparing methods of accountability, compare their effectiveness, not just their functions. The 2023 report praised candidates who directly compared select committees with PMQs, ministerial questions, urgent questions and other Commons mechanisms before reaching a judgement.
Examiner hint:Â Do not confuse Parliament and the Executive. Recent examiner reports identify this as a recurring weakness. Ministers may sit in Parliament, but government and Parliament are not interchangeable institutions.
Examiner hint:Â Use contemporary evidence, but put it into context. The 2024 report praised candidates who used recent evidence and compared it with earlier governments such as Thatcher or Blair to decide whether government control really had become stronger or weaker.
Examiner hint:Â Develop the judgement throughout your essay. Do not wait until the conclusion to evaluate. Recent reports repeatedly emphasise a clear line of argument supported by mini-judgements after competing arguments have been analysed.
Examiner hint:Â Use synoptic links where required. Executive-Parliament essays can connect effectively to Component 1 through FPTP, election results and political parties because these influence government majorities and party discipline.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Treating Parliament and the Executive as the same institution
Why this is incorrect: Although ministers normally sit in Parliament, the Executive is the governing branch while Parliament scrutinises government and legislates.
How to improve: Before analysing an example, ask:
Who is acting, government or Parliament?
Then identify which branch has gained or lost influence.
Mistake: Assuming scrutiny means Parliament controls government
Why this is incorrect: A select committee may expose weaknesses and PMQs may embarrass a minister without actually forcing government policy to change.
How to improve: Separate:
scrutiny → influence → control
Then explain how far each example reaches along that scale.
Mistake: Assuming a government majority automatically creates complete executive dominance
Why this is incorrect: The effectiveness of a majority depends on party unity. A divided governing party may experience large rebellions even where it has more MPs than the opposition.
How to improve: Assess both majority size and party discipline.
Mistake: Describing each government without analysing change
Why this is incorrect: A question about the changing balance of power requires comparison.
How to improve: Use each period as evidence for a judgement:
What changed? Why did it change? Did Parliament or the Executive gain power? Was the change temporary or lasting?
Mistake: Saying select committees can force the government to follow their recommendations
Why this is incorrect: Committees can investigate, report and create political pressure, but their ability to compel government action is limited.
How to improve: Describe select committees as strong mechanisms of scrutiny, then evaluate whether scrutiny translates into policy change.
Mistake: Using the term elective dictatorship to mean literal dictatorship
Why this is incorrect: The term refers to an elected government dominating Parliament, usually because of a large majority.
How to improve: Always explain the mechanism:
large majority + party discipline + government control of Commons business = potential executive dominance.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Define elective dictatorship. (1 mark)
Answer:
A government that dominates Parliament, usually because it has a large majority, and therefore faces few limits on its power.
Question 2
State two mechanisms through which Parliament can hold the Executive to account. (2 marks)
Answer:
Any two appropriate examples, including:
select committees
Prime Minister's Questions
ministerial questions
urgent questions
opposition scrutiny
backbench questioning or rebellion
One mark for each correct mechanism.
Question 3
Explain two reasons why a large Commons majority may strengthen the Executive. (4 marks)
Indicative mark scheme:
Credit one mark for identifying each reason and one further mark for development.
Possible points include:
A large majority means the government can survive some backbench rebellions and still win Commons votes.
A reliable majority allows ministers to pass much of their legislative programme.
Government whips can combine majority strength with party discipline to maintain control.
The government can therefore exercise greater control over parliamentary business.
Maximum 4 marks.
Question 4
A government has a Commons majority of only a few seats. A controversial bill causes several government backbenchers to announce that they may vote against it.
Explain how this situation could alter the balance of power between Parliament and the Executive. (6 marks)
Indicative mark scheme:
A strong response should explain that:
the government cannot afford a large rebellion
individual backbenchers therefore become more influential
ministers may negotiate with MPs
the government may amend or withdraw proposals before a vote
Parliament can influence government without actually defeating it
executive dominance is therefore weaker where the government's effective majority is small
Question 5
Explain why select committees may be more effective than Prime Minister's Questions at holding the Executive to account. (6 marks)
Indicative mark scheme:
Possible developed points include:
select committees can conduct sustained investigations rather than brief questioning
members can develop specialist knowledge
committees can gather evidence from ministers and witnesses
their work may be less partisan
reports can expose detailed weaknesses in government decisions
PMQs can be highly adversarial and answers may lack detail
Answers should also recognise that PMQs has advantages such as immediacy, direct questioning of the Prime Minister and substantial political visibility.
Question 6
Explain how First-past-the-post can contribute to executive dominance of Parliament. (6 marks)
Indicative mark scheme:
A developed response could explain:
FPTP can produce single-party majority governments.
The government therefore controls a majority of Commons seats.
Party whips encourage government MPs to vote together.
The Executive can normally secure parliamentary approval for its legislation.
Large majorities make individual backbench rebellions less threatening.
This can contribute to what is described as an elective dictatorship.
Question 7
Evaluate the view that select committees are the most effective way for Parliament to hold the Executive to account. (30 marks)
Indicative mark scheme:
Arguments supporting the view may include:
detailed investigations
ability to collect evidence
development of expertise
relative independence and bipartisan working
increased significance following reforms
capacity to expose weaknesses in departments and ministerial decisions
Arguments challenging the view may include:
recommendations are not automatically binding
governments may ignore committee findings
limited resources and enforcement powers
PMQs provides direct scrutiny of the Prime Minister
urgent questions provide immediate scrutiny
the opposition has a privileged parliamentary role
backbench rebellion can directly threaten government legislation
A high-level answer should compare the mechanisms throughout rather than describing each separately and should establish what criteria make one mechanism more effective than another.
Question 8
Evaluate the view that governments with a Commons majority can normally dominate Parliament. (30 marks)
Indicative mark scheme:
Arguments supporting the view:
party discipline and the whips
government control of much Commons time
Executive initiation of major legislation
large majorities can absorb rebellions
FPTP can produce majority governments
Royal Prerogative powers may reduce parliamentary involvement
concept of elective dictatorship
Arguments challenging the view:
backbench rebellions can force concessions
governing parties may be internally divided
select committees strengthen scrutiny
opposition pressure can damage government politically
the House of Lords can challenge government
parliamentary reforms have increased backbench influence
a nominal majority may provide little security where it is small
A strong conclusion should distinguish between a large, united majority and merely having an overall majority.
Question 9
Read the following source extract.
Supporters of parliamentary government argue that the Executive faces increasingly effective scrutiny. Backbenchers can rebel, select committees investigate departments and urgent questions require ministers to explain important decisions. Governments therefore need to listen carefully to Parliament before acting.Critics argue that these checks disguise continuing executive dominance. A government with a secure Commons majority can rely on party discipline, controls much parliamentary time and normally succeeds in passing its legislation. Parliamentary criticism may therefore create publicity without transferring real power away from ministers.
Using the source, evaluate the view that Parliament is now an effective check on executive power. (30 marks)
Indicative mark scheme:
Strong responses should pair competing arguments from the source.
Parliament as an effective check:
backbench rebellion can threaten legislation
ministers may make concessions before votes
select committees offer detailed scrutiny
urgent questions increase accountability
parliamentary pressure can constrain government behaviour
Continuing Executive dominance:
secure Commons majority
party discipline
control of much parliamentary time
government normally succeeds in passing its programme
scrutiny does not necessarily mean Parliament can compel policy change
For the highest levels, candidates should establish criteria for effectiveness, such as whether Parliament can merely scrutinise, can influence government, or can actually control executive action.
Question 10
Evaluate the view that changes in the balance of power between Parliament and the Executive since 2010 have been caused mainly by the size of the government's Commons majority. (30 marks)
Indicative mark scheme:
Arguments supporting the view may include:
coalition government after 2010 constrained straightforward executive control
the small majority after 2015 increased backbench leverage
minority government after 2017 significantly strengthened Parliament
the larger majority after 2019 strengthened the Executive
parliamentary arithmetic determines whether rebellions can defeat government
Arguments challenging the view may include:
party unity can matter as much as numerical majority
Prime Ministerial authority affects party discipline
parliamentary reforms strengthened select committees and backbenchers
particular political issues can generate unusually high levels of rebellion
the effectiveness of the opposition matters
party discipline and government control of Commons business provide continuing structural advantages regardless of majority size
A strong judgement should recognise that majority size is one of the most important short-term determinants of the balance of power, but its effect depends heavily on party unity, political circumstances and Parliament's willingness to use its scrutiny powers.
Comments