Questioning Prime Ministers: Procedures and Practices in 32 Parliamentary Democracies

Questioning Prime Ministers: Procedures and Practices in 32 Parliamentary Democracies In parliamentary democracies the relationship between governments and legislatures is founded upon a confidence agreement, whereby the executive derives its authority from, and is accountable to, the legislature. As heads of government, prime ministers are prominent political actors in parliamentary democracies and fulfil multiple roles, yet there is little understanding of how they are held accountable by national parliaments. What are the mechanisms through which parliamentarians may subject prime ministers to questioning? How do such mechanisms vary, and how do procedural differences affect the practice of questioning? The UK House of Commons famously provides a high-profile weekly session for questioning the head of government at Prime Minister’s Questions. But what other alternatives exist? Despite numerous studies examining executive-legislative relations, the specific relationship between heads of government and legislatures has been largely overlooked. Accountability is a key component of democratic politics, yet there is little understanding of the practice of holding heads of government to account. This paper presents findings from the first survey of procedural rules regarding mechanisms through which parliamentarians may question prime ministers in 32 parliamentary democracies. It draws on an initial in-depth survey of rules of procedure, followed by a consultation with practitioners and officials in each of the 32 parliaments, to uncover aspects of practice and convention in the conduct of questioning. The paper firstly seeks to situate mechanisms that allow parliamentary actors to engage with prime ministers within the wider accountability environment in different parliaments. It proposes a set of classifications of questioning mechanisms, exploring dimensions such as the collective or individualised nature of procedures, the extent to which procedures are more restrictive or permissive with respect to participation, as well as the degree of exposure and probing to which prime ministers are subjected by different procedures. It then sets out hypotheses for how these dimensions might affect the practice of questioning and proposes a typology of parliamentary mechanisms designed for questioning prime ministers.