The Ukraine Crisis And Units 1 And 2 Of Edexcel As Level Government And Politics.

The current crisis can be used to explain how the UK system of government operates within AS Level examinations.

In reacting to events in Ukraine the Prime Minister has open to him a range of options, but each is limited by both practical and political considerations.

Purely theoretically, there is a military option open to the Prime Minister. As Prime Minister he has the royal prerogative power to command the armed forces to intervene and as such could task a mission to Crimea to aid Ukraine`s defence of its sovereignty. This however is unlikely as although the Prime Minister has this power, parliament and specifically the House of Commons may view this as an abuse of his power and as such could limit him in several ways. Firstly there could be a vote to oppose military involvement. Whilst this would not formally reverse the Prime Minister`s decision it would, if the vote was against the government`s decision provide a formidable political obstacle, founded on the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Were the Prime Minister to choose this path in spite of parliamentary opposition, it would be possible for the House of Commons to hold a vote of no confidence in the government, which, if the government lost would result in the whole government being forced to resign or in the Conservative Party needing to choose a new leader who might be suitable as a Prime Minister (and therefore able to command a parliamentary majority).

Alternatively, the Cabinet could reverse and limit the Prime Minister`s power in this case. Particularly in today`s politics that are dominated by coalition considerations any action by the UK military would need Cabinet approval. If the Liberal Democrats opposed such an action (as they surely would) they may choose to leave the government and therefore leave the executive as a minority government, which could lead to the parliamentary sanctions outlined above. This can also be true if the `big beasts` of the Cabinet disagreed with the Prime Minister. For example, William Hague was awarded the position of Foreign Secretary because as a former party leader he commanded support in the parliamentary party and thus was required in a key position in order to guaranteed Conservative MPs` support for government actions. That Mr Hague has been allowed a degree of freedom in regard to Ukraine is indicative also of this balance of power within the Cabinet.

Finally, the effects of public opinion could limit the Prime Minister`s actions. In 2010 he did not reach a majority of seats in the Commons and therefore was forced to accept a coalition arrangement in order to form a government. David Cameron`s stated aim is to win an overall majority at the next election and it is likely that if he fails to do so his leadership will be challenged by any of a number of party figures who are waiting in the wings, not least Boris Johnson and perhaps Michael Gove. Since the 2003 Iraq war public attitude to military action has been cautious, and in the case of facing down Russian troops is likely to be even more negative. In this case the threat of negative public opinion could have a significant effect on Conservative electoral success and as a result would effectively remove the option from the Prime Minister, even though from a rational legal perspective it would still be open to him.

This logical explanation of the limits on Prime Ministerial action in relation to Ukraine could be applied to all potential actions, from economic sanctions to the signing of deals with other powers.