The Profumo scandal has once again brought to the fore the old question: Who rules Britain? Is it the Prime Minister functioning more or less on the presidential pattern or the Cabinet or the House of Commons? The exponents of the different schools of thought have sought and found confirmation for their viewpoint in recent events.
The House of Commons has often been called a talking shop. On a superficial view the description may not appear to be wholly wide of the mark because it can be argued that it is only on big issues like the Profumo affair that the backbenchers have a chance to make themselves felt and even then the House of Commons can decisively influence the course of events only if the government of the day is unable to keep the party behind it united. In the debate over the Profumo scandal, for instance, what caused the greatest headache to the Government and the Prime Minister personally was the abstention by 27 Conservative MPs and not the massive onslaught by the opposition leader, Mr Harold Wilson.
The exponents of this view, however, clearly ignore the imperceptible influence backbenchers exercise on government policy on the one hand, and on public opinion on the other, in quite normal circumstances. The question hour gives the backbenchers and the opposition parties this opportunity. In the Profumo affair the Conservative rebels would not have rebelled if the opposition had not made a good case.
Not Valid
The theory of collective responsibility of the Cabinet has not been wholly valid for a long time. Mr Richard Crossman is the most outstanding exponent of this view. He holds Lord Attlee, the Labour Prime Minister from 1945 to 1951, responsible for initiating what he calls the Prime Ministerial form of government. The manner in which Lord Attlee took the decision to manufacture the atom bomb is cited by him as proof in support of this contention. Those who have followed the controversy between him and Mr George Strauss, Minister of Supply in the Labour Government, in the “Letters to the Editor” columns of The New Statesman will agree with him that Mr George Strauss failed effectively to repudiate the charge that the decision was reached without prior “consultation” with the Cabinet as such.
Mr Strauss has claimed that the decision was taken at the defence sub-committee of the Cabinet and the Cabinet was duly apprised since the relevant minutes received its approval. Mr Crossman has quoted a personal letter to him from Mr Shinwell who served first as Secretary of State for War and later as Defence Minister under Lord Attlee saying that he did not even hear of the Government’s intentions. One might agree with Mr Crossman that the manner in which the decision was disclosed to the House of Commons also left much to be desired.
In answer to a question the then Defence Minister, Mr AV Alexander, told the House: “As was made clear in the statement relating to defence, 1948, research and development continue to receive the highest priority in the defence field, and all types of modern, including atomic weapons, are being developed.” Mr Grossman argues that this was an attempt at concealment. According to him the first proper announcement was made by Sir Winston Churchill after the first successful test.
Deliberate
Mr Crossman has alleged that Lord Attlee acted the way he did with the deliberate intention of keeping the Cabinet, Parliament and the country in the dark, without caring to establish the reason why he should have felt compelled to do so. The facts of the situation point in the other direction. At that time no influential body of opinion in the country was opposed to the manufacture of nuclear weapons. The peace movement and the unilateralists’ came into existence several years later. The fact that no discussion look place in Parliament following the Defence Minister’s reply lends support to the view that the Cabinet approved the defence sub-committee’s decision without raising any question because the matter had not yet become controversial. It was, however, not necessary for Mr Crossman to so vitiate and weaken his argument. Lord Attlee’s ascendancy over his colleagues was evident and Mr Macmillan’s even more so.
No serious student of British politics disputes that Mr Macmillan has been one of the most masterful personalities of our times. He has been described as the shrewdest political operator in recent years by no less a person than Mr Wilson recently. There could be no question about his ascendancy over his Cabinet and the Conservative party. Illustrations abound and some of them may be cited. Lord Salisbury who more than anyone else was responsible for Mr Macmillan’s appointment as the Prime Minister has hardly been heard of for some years now. Last July Mr Macmillan unceremoniously dismissed seven Cabinet Ministers and whispers of party revolt died within ten days.
Whatever be the findings of Lord Denning who is inquiring into different aspects of the Profumo affair, Mr Macmillan has himself admitted that it was unfortunate that the security services did not pass on to him the information that reached them. And it is only too obvious that he failed to take the necessary steps to establish the truth for himself even after the necessary information had been conveyed to him last February. For this discussion the more relevant point is that a fairly large number of Conservative MPs were so dissatisfied with his handling of the affair that 27 of them abstained from what in effect, amounted to a vote of no-confidence in the Prime Minister and he has survived it for the time being at any rate.
There are several reasons for Mr Macmillan’s survival. It has been said that the Conservative party’s inability to agree on his successor has weakened the challenge to him. It is also believed that since the Conservative party’s standing in the country is so bad that it fears the loss of as many as 150 seats in an early general election. Mr Macmillan was able to drive home to the recalcitrant members the threat that he would recommend the dissolution of Parliament to the Queen. This might well be so but it does not dispose of the view that in our times prime ministers and leaders of parties have come to possess the power virtually to perpetuate themselves in office. Unlike Mr Macmillan, Mr Harold Wilson is not imposing himself on his party through any kind of threat but the ascendancy that he established in six brief months over his front bench points to the same political trend.
As things stand today, it seems unlikely that there can be a sudden and miraculous improvement in the Conservative party’s standing in the country. Further reverses in the forthcoming by-elections are therefore expected to lead to the intensification of the pressure on Mr Macmillan to give way to a younger man. Should he, however, succeed in pulling off an agreement with the Soviet Government on the prohibition of nuclear tests and arrange a summit meeting of the big three, the threat to his personal position can dramatically weaken and may even disappear.
Masterly
The miracle that he performed in uniting the Conservative party and leading it to victory after the Suez debacle is well known. What is not equally widely appreciated even here is the masterly manner in which he has rendered impotent the right wing extremists in his party on the issue of granting freedom to British colonies in Africa. Lord Salisbury and the backwoodsmen in the party were set for a kill on the question of a more liberal constitution for Northern Rhodesia in 1961. Nearly 100 MPs sided with Sir Roy Welensky in his attempt to frustrate Mr Macmillan. He stalled for over a year and finally had his way last year. His victory was so complete that the Central African Federation is now being dissolved. Lords gathering in private salons and fashionable clubs can no longer make or mar Conservative Prime Ministers.
To return to the original question, the House of Commons remains the supreme national forum. No British politician can make his mark in the country unless he can do it in the House. This is peculiar to Britain. The institution of the Cabinet has suffered diminution in status and power. Whether that has become an irreversible trend remains to be seen.
The Times of India, 29 June 1963