Parliaments sometimes get to influence security policy, but not always. Juliet Kaarbo draws on Leadership Trait Analysis to argue that prime ministerial leadership style is a critical factor in determining the role of parliaments in foreign affairs. She demonstrates the plausibility of this argument by comparing how Turkish and UK prime ministers' orientations towards parliament influenced key security policies

Kaarbo, Juliet

LSE Research Online

How	a	prime	minister’s	leadership	style	affects	theirparliament’s	role	in	security	decisionsParliaments	sometimes	get	to	influence	security	policy,	but	not	always.	Juliet	Kaarbo	draws	onLeadership	Trait	Analysis	to	argue	that	prime	ministerial	leadership	style	is	a	critical	factor	indetermining	the	role	of	parliaments	in	foreign	affairs.	She	demonstrates	the	plausibility	of	thisargument	by	comparing	how	Turkish	and	UK	prime	ministers’	orientations	towards	parliamentinfluenced	key	security	policies.The	long-held	view	that	parliaments	are	insignificant	players	in	security	policy	is	coming	underconsiderable	challenge	by	recent	research	demonstrating	that	parliaments	can	and	have	played	a	critical	role	in	keysecurity	decisions.	Parliaments,	of	course,	are	not	always	influential	or	even	involved	in	security	policy	andcontemporary	scholarship	identifies	a	number	of	factors	that	affect	parliamentary	influence,	including	the	particularpowers	held	by	parliaments,	intraparty	divisions,	and	the	context	of	the	security	mission.	Missing	from	this	laundry	listis	the	prime	minister,	the	most	important	political	agent	in	parliamentary	systems.	In	my	research,	I	explore	howdifferences	in	PMs’	leadership	styles	enhance	or	minimize	parliamentary	influence	in	security	policy.PMs’	orientations	to	parliaments’	role	are	important	because	parliamentary	authority	in	security	matters	is	oftenconstitutionally	and	politically	ambiguous.	Even	in	the	American	system,	in	which	the	legislative	role	is	constitutionallyprescribed	and	further	codified	in	the	War	Powers	Resolution,	presidents	sometimes	seek	Congressional	approvalfor	troop	deployment;	at	other	times	they	do	not.The	ambiguity	of	a	legislative	role	in	security	is	also	present	in	many	parliamentary	systems	and	even	whenparliamentary	approval	is	legally	required,	there	is	often	disagreement	about	when	and	how	parliamentaryinvolvement	is	to	be	triggered.	When	there	is	no	constitutional	basis	for	such	involvement,	as	in	the	UK	tradition	ofthe	Royal	Prerogative,	there	is	considerable	scope	for	PMs	to	decide	if	and	when	to	involve	parliament.Parliamentary	involvement	in	UK	security	policy	may	have	become	political	convention,	as	James	Strong	and	othershave	argued,	but	this	convention	is	a	product	of	successive	decisions	by	PMs	to	allow	the	House	of	Commons	tohave	a	say.	When	parliaments	are	asked	to	(or	themselves	initiate)	a	debate	and	vote	on	a	matter	of	foreign	affairs,PMs	also	vary	in	the	way	they	manage	the	parliamentary	process.	PMs,	for	example,	may	play	a	lead	in	discipliningtheir	party,	delegate	discipline	to	others,	or	choose	to	remain	above	the	political	fray.Prime	ministers’	orientations	to	parliaments	are	undoubtedly	influenced	by	many	factors,	including	their	personalleadership	style.	PMs,	for	example,	may	differ	in	their	overall	involvement	with	parliament	and	they	may	differ	in	howthey	react	to	intraparty	politics.	They	may	also	vary	in	the	extent	to	which	they	engage	in	denial	of	opposition	orwishful	thinking	that	the	vote	will	be	in	their	favour.	These	differences	are	affected	by	basic	personality	traits.I	argue	that	the	seven	personality	traits	captured	in	Margaret	Hermann’s	Leadership	Trait	Analysis	framework	–belief	in	ability	to	control	events;	conceptual	complexity;	need	for	power;	distrust	of	others;	in-group	bias;	self-confidence;	and	task	orientation	–	affect	PMs’	leadership	styles	and	how	they	deal	with	parliament.	Research	hasdemonstrated	that	these	seven	traits	systematically	link	to	leaders’	propensity	to	challenge	or	respect	constraints,their	openness	to	information	and	advice,	the	structure	of	their	advisory	systems,	the	quality	of	decision-makingprocesses,	and	the	policies	leaders	choose	for	their	country	or	organization.	From	this	research,	I	deriveexpectations	about	PM	orientations	toward	parliamentary	influence	in	security	policies.These	involve	three	questions.	First,	which	PMs	are	most	likely	to	fight	against	parliamentary	involvement?	I	arguethat	PMs	who	have	a	high	need	for	power,	and	high	levels	of	distrust,	are	likely	to	challenge	or	circumscribe	anyparliamentary	role.		Second,	which	PMs	will	actively	engage	in	the	management	of	the	parliamentary	process?Research	suggests	that	PMs	who	have	a	strong	belief	in	their	ability	to	control	events	and	high	conceptualcomplexity	will	be	more	involved.	Third,	how	effective	are	PMs	in	the	management	of	that	process?	From	work	onleaders	and	policy	mistakes,	we	would	expect	leaders	who	are	low	in	complexity	and	high	in	self-confidence	toblunder	the	process	through	mismanagement	and	underestimate	the	degree	of	opposition	in	parliament.	This	type	ofPM	ineffectively	opens	the	door	for	greater	parliamentary	influence.British Politics and Policy at LSE: How a prime minister’s leadership style affects their parliament’s role in security decisions Page 1 of 2		Date originally posted: 2018-02-07Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/prime-minister-leadership-style-and-parliaments-in-security-policy/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/Turkish	politics	provides	one	example	of	how	different	PM	leadership	styles	influence	PMs’	orientations	toparliaments	and	their	role	in	foreign	and	security	policy.	In	my	study	with	Çuhadar,	Kesgin,	and	Özkeçeci-Taner,	weargue	that	the	surprise	Turkish	parliament	vote	in	2003	to	decline	the	American	request	to	use	Turkey	as	a	base	foroperations	in	the	Iraq	War	was	a	result	of	the	PM’s	bungling	the	management	of	the	vote.	In	stark	contrast	was	theTurkish	parliament’s	approval	of	the	deployment	of	troops	in	the	1991	Gulf	War,	which,	we	argue,	came	about	from	avery	forceful	leadership	dictating	its	terms	to	parliament.	The	key	differences	in	the	personality	traits	for	the	leaders	inthese	cases	were	their	self-confidence	and	complexity.Another	example	comes	from	the	UK.	In	my	article	with	Daniel	Kenealy,	we	note	that	in	the	highly	unusual	House	ofCommons	defeat	of	David	Cameron’s	preference	to	attack	Syria	in	2013,	the	PM	was	criticised	for	recallingParliament	in	a	haphazard	manner,	not	doing	enough	to	secure	support	from	wavering	backbenchers,	beingoverconfident,	and	underestimating	the	opposition.	Cameron’s	call	for	parliamentary	support	can	be	contrasted	withBlair’s	reluctance	to	go	to	the	House	of	Commons	in	the	2003	Iraq	war;	and	Cameron’s	mismanagement	of	theprocess	can	be	contrasted	with	Blair	effectively	turning	the	Iraq	vote	into	a	confidence	motion	and	passionatelydelivering	an	impressive	rhetorical	case.Can	the	differences	between	these	two	PMs’	orientations	toward	parliament’s	role	in	security	policy	be	captured	byLeadership	Trait	Analysis?	Blair’s	higher	belief	in	his	ability	to	control	events	and	his	higher	need	for	power	mayexplain	his	lower	openness	to	parliamentary	involvement	and	his	higher	level	of	active	involvement.	Cameron’scomparatively	higher	complexity	may	explain	his	greater	openness	to	parliamentary	involvement	and	his	higher	self-confidence	may	explain	his	ineffective	management.The	examples	of	Turkish	and	UK	security	policy	demonstrate	plausibility	for	my	argument	that	PMs’	orientations	arepart	of	the	picture	in	parliamentary	involvement	in	security	affairs.	If	the	role	of	parliaments	in	security	policy	isincreasing	in	significance,	and	if	the	relationship	between	executives	and	legislatures	is	being	recalibrated	in	modernparliamentary	democracies,	the	executive,	led	by	the	PM,	has	considerable	authority	to	interpret,	manage,	and	evenmanipulate	this	relationship.__________Note:	the	above	draws	on	the	author’s	published	work	in	The	British	Journal	of	Politics	and	International	Relations.About	the	AuthorJuliet	Kaarbo	is	Professor	in	Politics	&	International	Relations	at	the	University	of	Edinburgh.			All	articles	posted	on	this	blog	give	the	views	of	the	author(s),	and	not	the	position	of	LSE	British	Politics	and	Policy,nor	of	the	London	School	of	Economics	and	Political	Science.	Featured	image	credit:	Pixabay/Public	Domain.British Politics and Policy at LSE: How a prime minister’s leadership style affects their parliament’s role in security decisions Page 2 of 2		Date originally posted: 2018-02-07Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/prime-minister-leadership-style-and-parliaments-in-security-policy/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/

How a prime minister's leadership style affects their parliament's role in security decisions

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/88805/1/politicsandpolicy-prime-minister-leadership-style-and-parliaments-in.pdf

How a prime minister's leadership style affects their parliament's role in security decisions

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online