THE Crown, a series on the British Royal family on Netflix, is a fun watch for many reasons despite the liberties it takes with facts. Even then, it is the political aspect of many episodes which are more entertaining than the details of the personal lives of the extended royal family.

In the second season, it is the close relationship which evolves between a Labour prime minister, Harold Wilson, and the Queen, which is the highlight of the episodes. But what especially sticks in the mind is the point where the prime minister confesses to the Queen that despite being in favour of the monarchy, he can only go so far in support of her in the face of opposition of his cabinet members who were inclined otherwise. There is more than one scene in which Wilson is seen sitting uncomfortably in cabinet meetings where the others are discussing the royal family or the concept of a monarchy in general.

The details provided in the series are far from accurate but it is said that Wilson and the Queen shared a comfortable relationship; in addition Labour prime ministers have generally been deferential to the monarchy. It is also a fact that some of Wilson’s cabinet colleagues did not share his views. Wilson did veto a suggestion from Tony Benn to remove the Queen’s image from stamps.

But it is an interesting glimpse into how cabinet decision-making should work — where, ideally, the prime minister, who is simply the first among equals, should not be able to impose his views and decisions on the cabinet.

To some extent, the unequal relationship between party heads and parties has made parliament redundant.

They are all, after all, members of a party that won the election and, be it the prime minister or his cabinet colleagues, they all derive their legitimacy from it. And because the party has many other members in parliament, they are also in the position to and likely to hold the cabinet and its members answerable, as much as the opposition should.

In other words, the party is just as important an institution as the parliament to which its members are elected. It’s the primacy of both in politics which creates accountability in a parliamentary system of politics. Ideally.

But this has changed over time.

The weakening of parliament (at the expense of the executive) is to some extent a worldwide phenomenon. Take the example of the UK; over time, collective decision-making gave way to Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair who were able to assert themselves over the cabinet and parliament. Blair was known for making decisions through his ‘kitchen cabinet’ which comprised unelected advisers rather than the entire cabinet. Thatcher had been no different in relying on her advisers, rather than the cabinet.

But there is another, more telling example. Blair also reduced the prime minister’s question hour to once a week, having admitted that he found it uncomfortable. The prime minister’s question hour was never a very substantive tradition of the British parliament — but it was noisy, which is what democracy is about, and symbolic of the idea of parliament holding the prime minister accountable. And apart from the opposition, it was seen as an exercise that allowed the ruling party’s backbenchers to judge how well or poorly their prime minister did.

It would perhaps take a close observer of British politics to explain this shift in the balance of power from the legislature to the executive but it is said that partly media coverage (which has changed over the years with television and now social media) has allowed party heads/prime ministers to take centre-stage. Instead of parties, elections are now about the leader — it has become more ‘presidential’ in that sense. Perhaps this has also allowed them to assert themselves over parliaments and their own colleagues.

It is a debate that came to mind in the past week, as there was much lamentation on the inefficacy of parliament and how the prime minister does not give it much importance. And how this reflects his, and his party’s, non-democratic nature.

But the PTI is not very much different from its predecessor where Nawaz Sharif also was too busy with governance affairs to make it to the parliament very frequently. Yousuf Raza Gilani was different but then he owed his prime ministership to the party instead of being the man the party owed its victory to. He wasn’t making the big decisions about governance but the appearances in parliament allowed him to emphasise that he was far more than an ordinary MNA.

We need to realise that to some extent the unequal relationship between the party heads and parties has made parliament redundant. Unlike the UK, party heads here owe very little to their parties and hence to parliament. And neither the prime minister, who heads his party, nor his cabinet members, who feel they owe their position to him and not the party, feel the need to respect or fear the forum.

And this has been one reason that major decisions — including about legislation — are made elsewhere than on the floor of parliament.

Be it the military courts or the legislation on the extension of the services chief, the parliamentary session was called only once everything else had been decided. The main decisions about legislations and laws are made before the session is called. And as the most recent example shows, this decision is made in such a nontransparent manner that it is usually put down to the reasoning of an individual, the head of the party.

No wonder then that when the decision was made by the PML-N and the PPP to support the legislation, the only interesting reporting (about debate and difference of opinion) came our way via news stories on the internal meetings of the PML-N.

This centralisation of power in the party is what is — along with other factors — leading to a weakening of parliament. The latter will not regain strength till the party is made stronger. The two institutions can’t be seen in isolation. Only once these institutions are strengthened can they perhaps be in a position to fix the other fault lines in our politics.

The writer is a journalist.

Published in Dawn, May 19th, 2020