The practice of accountability in questioning prime ministers: Comparative evidence from Australia, Canada, Ireland, and the United Kingdom
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/13691481211058584 |
| Published date | 01 February 2023 |
| Date | 01 February 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Original Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/13691481211058584
The British Journal of Politics and
International Relations
2023, Vol. 25(1) 42 –63
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13691481211058584
journals.sagepub.com/home/bpi
The practice of accountability
in questioning prime ministers:
Comparative evidence from
Australia, Canada, Ireland,
and the United Kingdom
Ruxandra Serban
Abstract
This paper compares the practice of holding prime ministers to account in four case studies:
Australia, Canada, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. Using text analysis, as well as research on
prime ministerial responsibilities, it investigates oral questions asked in parliamentary procedures
where prime ministers are questioned together with ministers (Question Period in Canada and
Question Time in Australia) versus procedures where they are questioned individually (PMQs in
the United Kingdom and Oral Questions to the Taoiseach in Ireland), and explores the degree to
which they are questioned for matters that are within their remit. It argues that the practice of
prime ministerial accountability is decisively shaped by procedural features such as whether written
notice is required for questions, as well as by the broader role of the questioning mechanism in the
political system, and less by the collective or individualised nature of questioning.
Keywords
accountability, comparative case studies, executive-legislative relations, legislative studies,
parliamentary questions, prime ministers
Introduction
Prime ministers wield considerable authority and visibility in parliamentary democracies,
yet their powers and responsibilities are scarcely defined. The premiership often devel-
oped as a result of conventions and practice, and this applies to systems as varied as the
United Kingdom (Blick and Jones, 2010), Canada (Brodie, 2018), Belgium, and the
Netherlands (Andeweg, 1988; Fiers and Krouwel, 2005). Prime ministers have multiple
roles: while they chair cabinets and ‘speak for’ the government, they do not just lead as
first among equals and share responsibility with ministers for government decisions; they
The London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK
Corresponding author:
Ruxandra Serban, Department of Methodology, The London School of Economics and Political Science,
Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK.
Email: r.serban@lse.ac.uk
1058584BPI0010.1177/13691481211058584The British Journal of Politics and International RelationsSerban
research-article2021
Original Article
Serban 43
also have powers that they exercise exclusively. This tension between the collective
authority of the government, the individual authority of ministers, and prime ministerial
authority is central to parliamentary democracies.
Consequently, we would expect prime ministers to be questioned on a wide range of
issues. This requirement to engage publicly with various topics is, doubtless, a way of
ensuring that they are challenged to justify government decisions. But to what degree are
they questioned about matters for which they are personally responsible? Do different
parliamentary questioning mechanisms provide adequate scrutiny of prime ministerial
responsibilities and decision-making, or do they leave accountability gaps? Understanding
how this process of parliamentary accountability plays out is important for several rea-
sons: above all, the extent to which political leaders are held to account for their actions
and decisions is a crucial component of democratic politics; and political scientists study-
ing parliaments, as well as practitioners looking at executive scrutiny, have long held an
interest in the quality and effectiveness of accountability mechanisms and processes.
Exploring whether questioning mechanisms achieve the aim of scrutinising prime minis-
ters for their responsibilities constitutes a first step towards mapping the quality and
effectiveness of prime ministerial accountability.
Drawing on research on prime ministerial responsibilities, as well as quantitative and
qualitative analysis of parliamentary questions, this paper investigates the practice of
holding prime ministers to account in four case study countries: the United Kingdom and
Ireland, where individualised parliamentary questioning mechanisms are used, and prime
ministers are questioned alone; and Australia and Canada, where questioning mecha-
nisms are collective, and prime ministers are questioned together with ministers.
Specifically, it examines the topics they are questioned on: the extent to which they are
questioned on matters for which they are personally responsible, or jointly responsible
with a minister, compared to matters for which a minister is responsible.
The first section traces the complexity of prime ministerial accountability in existing
literature. The second part outlines the research design. Next, I compare the roles and
responsibilities of prime ministers in Canada, Australia, Ireland, and the United Kingdom.
Part four evaluates the practice of accountability in collective and individualised mecha-
nisms comparatively by reviewing the topics on which prime ministers were asked ques-
tions and the extent to which they were questioned about issues for which they are
personally responsible. Finally, I discuss insights on the practice of accountability in the
four cases, and implications for institutional design. By exploring and documenting prac-
tices associated with the parliamentary accountability of heads of government, this
research sheds light on the ‘missing link’ in the chain of delegation (Bergman et al., 2003)
between parliaments and cabinets in parliamentary democracies, and contributes to the
literature on the processes and practices of political accountability (Bovens, 2007, 2010;
Mansbridge, 2014; Mulgan, 2003; Olsen, 2013).
Holding prime ministers to account: Power, roles, and
responsibilities
Prime ministerial power
Research on prime ministers involves a long-standing preoccupation with the ‘power’ that
heads of government hold, either across countries (Jones, 1991; King, 1994; O’Malley
2007; Rose 1991; Sartori, 1997), or relative to other institutions within countries (e.g.,
To continue reading
Request your trial