What are the benefits to an Unelected Cabinet?

Can someone tell me the advantages if any to an unelected cabinet?

Under a Westminster system, such as the UK, Canada, Australia, India etc etc etc, the cabinet, that is the executive of the nation is selected from the sitting members of the government. Usually they are selected from the Lower House (The Commons, The House of Representatives etc) but equally they can be selected from the Upper House (The Lords, The Senate etc). Admittedly in the UK a cabinet member selected from the Lords is not elected, but they are for practically every other Upper House member.

In the USA however, the cabinet is not selected from sitting members in either house of Congress, but chosen by the President himself from... anywhere really.

Doesn't this inherently lead to nepotism of the highest degree? Would it not lead say to the President picking someone who might have helped fund his presidential campaign? Is it possible for the President in theory to pick his brother, cousin or best friend for a cabinet post?

If the cabinet is unelected, then it follows that if the public didn't like them there isn't any recourse for them at all. At least in a Westminster system, the local constituents of the member can vote them out of their own seat at the next election - as was the case with John Howard at the last Australian election.

I'm afraid that I don't honestly see any benefit at all to having a cabinet that's unelected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Is it possible for the President in theory to pick his brother, cousin or best friend for a cabinet post?

---

John F Kennedy President of the United States

Robert F Kennedy Attorney General of the United States

You got a problem with that! :p :

In this Westminster system, if the member who holds a cabinet position loses that seat, does he also have to leave his cabinet post?

I prefer a system that isn't just restricted to the "political class". Ideally, the President selects the best and brightest from a large pool of candidates. Of course, that doesn't always happen (Rumsfeld, Gonzales, etc., etc.). But since I'm not convinced that the best and brightest are necessarily attracted to being career politicians, I'm not sure that one would want to just pick from that group. It didn't happen, but I was certainly hoping that Paul Volker or Warren Buffett would have been considered for the top job at Treasury. And it wouldn't have hurt my feelings if Colin Powell or Norman Schwarzkopf had been considered for Secretery of Defense. But since none of those people hold elected office, I guess they wouldn't be considered under the Westminster system?

It's worth noting that all Cabinet nominees have to be approved by the Senate.
In a well functioning Representative Democracy, these Senators are dutifully bound to scrutinize these nominees
and vote to approve or disapprove them, based on their qualifications, including extensive background checks
consisting of hundreds of pages of documents largely to insure no conflicts of interest.

I hope that is helpful. I admire the generally high level of interest in the American political system from the members unacquainted with the process.
Most Americans couldn't even tell you how their own system works, let alone show interest in European "Civics"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

In this Westminster system, if the member who holds a cabinet position loses that seat, does he also have to leave his cabinet post?

---

Yes - but, if the party they represented remained in power, they could then be nominated for a peerage, enter the House of Lords and become a minister again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

I prefer a system that isn't just restricted to the "political class". Ideally, the President selects the best and brightest from a large pool of candidates. Of course, that doesn't always happen (Rumsfeld, Gonzales, etc., etc.). But since I'm not convinced that the best and brightest are necessarily attracted to being career politicians, I'm not sure that one would want to just pick from that group. It didn't happen, but I was certainly hoping that Paul Volker or Warren Buffett would have been considered for the top job at Treasury. And it wouldn't have hurt my feelings if Colin Powell or Norman Schwarzkopf had been considered for Secretery of Defense. But since none of those people hold elected office, I guess they wouldn't be considered under the Westminster system?

---

They could be considered, just as the former head of the Confederation of British Industry, Digby Jones, was. The Labour party made him a peer and brought him into the government. He didn't enjoy it and soon quit. It certainly doesn't follow that a good businessman or business leader will make a good politician, and vice versa. Personally, I am rather more concerned about the type of person selected by the major parties to fight seats at the General Election - they seem to be drawn from an increasingly bland pool.

I think the appointed cabinet works for the US of A quite well because of the 3 legged stool that is the US system. The Executive Branch is independent of Congress and the Supreme Court and therefore needs high officials besides the official to actually help run the government. The system demands appointees that actually are competant and for the most part, are. Occasionally a President will get a little too cute with his appointee and put a buffoon in the job but some of the most amazing, selfless figures in US history have been appointees. It works. God knows that the average PM in your Westminister system of parliament has a hodge podge of factions who all want to be part of the game and often the best people are given comprimised posistions and some good people are left out so all regions of the country can have someone in the cabinet. In a large country like Canada, the decision to have a cabinet light in members from the West or Quebec can only lead to a lot of internecine fighting within the party and give the critics something to chew on.

IN the US, the cabinet stands or fails on its merits. The job Janet Reno did presiding over the Waco mess and that orphaned Cuban kid in Florida just shows how one bad appointment can really taint an administration.

As Mark says in Canada the PM has to make appointments to the cabinet ensuring that all regions (Provinces) are represented. One problem is the three Territories where there are few members. Right now Toronto has no elected Conservatives so Canada's largest city has no cabinet ministers although there are some from the GTA.
In the previous Govt. the Consevatives had no seats in Quebec so the PM appointed someone to the Senate and then to cabinet. To do this there has to be a vacancy in the Senate and for the province. There is a set number of Senate seats. Although not a requirement the PM pretty well has to have some female members in his cabinet.
Usually there are some pretty weak cabinet ministers and the PM tries to put them in juniour portfolios where they cannot screw up too badly.
Truth be known in 75% of the portfolios the civil servants do as they please and only let the minister know what they want him to. It takes a strong and sharp minister to really run his or her portfolio.

The problem with the UK system is that you have a limited pool of senior people to give the top jobs for & all too often they don't have any experience in the field they are meant to be in charge of.

No insult meant on him, but take Geoff Hoon for example:

Masters degree in Law, called to the bar in '78, served as a law professor and as a barrister.

Sounds like somebody who might be qualified as minister for justice or home office?

His two cabinet posts? first Defence, then Transport!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by courageous

The problem with the UK system is that you have a limited pool of senior people to give the top jobs for & all too often they don't have any experience in the field they are meant to be in charge of.

No insult meant on him, but take Geoff Hoon for example:

Masters degree in Law, called to the bar in '78, served as a law professor and as a barrister.

Sounds like somebody who might be qualified as minister for justice or home office?

His two cabinet posts? first Defence, then Transport!

---

Yup...the American system allows the President to actually reach into the industry that is going to be regulated and pick out someone who understands the game. Of course this can be fraught with peril but most cabinet choices do pretty well. You don't see the ineptitude and scandal you do with ministers of the crown who have no clue except what the Deputy Minister ( the guy with the real power ) tells them.

It is no different than the former Libreal Government of Canada putting a banker in charge of defence. Of course, he actually wasn't too bad at the job (I say this not voting for his party) but the PM in most cases sets the priorities in most dept's through the budget and planning process. You can get away with poltical appointments if they are people loyal to the PM and smart enough to keep their mouth's shut on matters they dont' know about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by courageous

The problem with the UK system is that you have a limited pool of senior people to give the top jobs for & all too often they don't have any experience in the field they are meant to be in charge of.

No insult meant on him, but take Geoff Hoon for example:

Masters degree in Law, called to the bar in '78, served as a law professor and as a barrister.

Sounds like somebody who might be qualified as minister for justice or home office?

His two cabinet posts? first Defence, then Transport!

---

I would be all too happy to insult Geoff Hoon! Ghastly man.

One problem is the range of backgrounds from which politicians come. There are certainly a lot of former lawyers (I used to work for one), and former council leaders, to name just a couple of typical previous professions. But there's not a lot that can be done about this, and making direct use of expertise would not always work well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Personally, I am rather more concerned about the type of person selected by the major parties to fight seats at the General Election - they seem to be drawn from an increasingly bland pool.

---

As am I. Since the time of the Roman Republic, isn't it odd that it's usually been proven better (and safer!) to be the man behind The Man, rather than The Man himself?