Return to Answer

Yes, this is a well-known flaw in parliamentary systems.

A new leader for a government can be elected by a very small number of people, who usually represent only one part of the electorate. There is potential there to choose a leader who is highly disapproved of by the majority of the electorate. This has been true since party leaders started being elected by party members, and even before when party leaders were elected by party MPs (Members of Parliament), which meant a smaller number of electors (though at least they were electors who were themselves elected).

However while an extremely unpopular leader can be elected in this way, their ability to wield power is limited by a number of factors. The main one is that parliamentary leaders require the support of the their elected party members to continue to govern. Even if a leader is elected by 51% of the party ordinary members, if a significant number of the party's MPs will not support the leader then their reign is going to be very short lived. This is especially true if they attempt to execute extremely unpopular policies.

We see this taking effect with Liz Truss. The policies she proposed were extremely unpopular with the majority of the British electorate (or were going to prove extremely unpopular once the economic effects became apparent), even if the Conservative party members specifically elected her to carry out those policies. It is very likely that her MPs told her this behind the scenes and may have threatened not to support her if she continued, and the subsequent retractions were made to forestall exactly the kind of MP rebellion that took down her predecessor.

This effect is made more powerful because MPs usually want to be re-elected, and any radical departure from the policies supported by a majority of the electorate are going to make it hard for an MP to get re-elected.

There is a related effect at play in the Canadian Conservative Party, where a large number of party members support quite radical right-wing policies that would be opposed by most of the Canadian electorate. Recent leaders have won the leadership by espousing right-wing policies during the leadership campaign, but in order to stand a chance in a general election have had to not campaign on many of those policies. This results in them being un-elected by their party after the election (if they lose).

This is a well-known flaw in parliamentary party systems.

A new leader for a government can be elected by a very small number of people, who usually represent only one part of the electorate. There is potential there to choose a leader who is highly disapproved of by the majority of the electorate. This has been true since party leaders started being elected by party members, and even before when party leaders were elected by party MPs (Members of Parliament), which meant a smaller number of electors (though at least they were electors who were themselves elected). It isn't necessary that it happens, but it is a risk.

However while an extremely unpopular leader can be elected in this way, their ability to wield power is limited by a number of factors. The main one is that parliamentary leaders require the support of the their elected party members to continue to govern. Even if a leader is elected by 51% of the party ordinary members, if a significant number of the party's MPs will not support the leader then their reign is going to be very short lived. This is especially true if they attempt to execute extremely unpopular policies.

We see this taking effect with Liz Truss. The policies she proposed were extremely unpopular with the majority of the British electorate (or were going to prove extremely unpopular once the economic effects became apparent), even if the Conservative party members specifically elected her to carry out those policies. It is very likely that her MPs told her this behind the scenes and may have threatened not to support her if she continued, and the subsequent retractions were made to forestall exactly the kind of MP rebellion that took down her predecessor.

This effect is made more powerful because MPs usually want to be re-elected, and any radical departure from the policies supported by a majority of the electorate are going to make it hard for an MP to get re-elected.

There is a related effect at play in the Canadian Conservative Party, where a large number of party members support quite radical right-wing policies that would be opposed by most of the Canadian electorate. Recent leaders have won the leadership by espousing right-wing policies during the leadership campaign, but in order to stand a chance in a general election have had to not campaign on many of those policies. This results in them being un-elected by their party after the election (if they lose).

Yes, this is a well-known flaw in parliamentary systems.

A new leader for a government can be elected by a very small number of people, who usually represent only one part of the electorate. There is potential there to choose a leader who is highly disapproved of by the majority of the electorate. This has been true since party leaders started being elected by party members, and even before when party leaders were elected by members of parliament, which meant a smaller number of electors (though at least they were electors who were themselves elected).

However while an extremely unpopular leader can be elected in this way, their ability to wield power is limited by a number of factors. The main one is that parliamentary leaders require the support of the their elected party members to continue to govern. Even if a leader is elected by 51% of the party ordinary members, if a significant number of the party's MPs will not support the leader then their reign is going to be very short lived. This is especially true if they attempt to execute extremely unpopular policies.

We see this taking effect with Liz Truss. The policies she proposed were extremely unpopular with the majority of the British electorate (or were going to prove extremely unpopular once the economic effects became apparent), even if the Conservative party members specifically elected her to carry out those policies. It is very likely that her MPs told her this behind the scenes and may have threatened not to support her if she continued, and the subsequent retractions were made to forestall exactly the kind of MP rebellion that took down her predecessor.

This effect is made more powerful because MPs usually want to be re-elected, and any radical departure from the policies supported by a majority of the electorate are going to make it hard for an MP to get re-elected.

There is a related effect at play in the Canadian Conservative Party, where a large number of party members support quite radical right-wing policies that would be opposed by most of the Canadian electorate. Recent leaders have won the leadership by espousing right-wing policies, but in order to stand a chance in a general election have had to abandon many of those policies. This results in them being un-elected by their party after the election.

Yes, this is a well-known flaw in parliamentary systems.

A new leader for a government can be elected by a very small number of people, who usually represent only one part of the electorate. There is potential there to choose a leader who is highly disapproved of by the majority of the electorate. This has been true since party leaders started being elected by party members, and even before when party leaders were elected by party MPs (Members of Parliament), which meant a smaller number of electors (though at least they were electors who were themselves elected).

However while an extremely unpopular leader can be elected in this way, their ability to wield power is limited by a number of factors. The main one is that parliamentary leaders require the support of the their elected party members to continue to govern. Even if a leader is elected by 51% of the party ordinary members, if a significant number of the party's MPs will not support the leader then their reign is going to be very short lived. This is especially true if they attempt to execute extremely unpopular policies.

We see this taking effect with Liz Truss. The policies she proposed were extremely unpopular with the majority of the British electorate (or were going to prove extremely unpopular once the economic effects became apparent), even if the Conservative party members specifically elected her to carry out those policies. It is very likely that her MPs told her this behind the scenes and may have threatened not to support her if she continued, and the subsequent retractions were made to forestall exactly the kind of MP rebellion that took down her predecessor.

This effect is made more powerful because MPs usually want to be re-elected, and any radical departure from the policies supported by a majority of the electorate are going to make it hard for an MP to get re-elected.

There is a related effect at play in the Canadian Conservative Party, where a large number of party members support quite radical right-wing policies that would be opposed by most of the Canadian electorate. Recent leaders have won the leadership by espousing right-wing policies during the leadership campaign, but in order to stand a chance in a general election have had to not campaign on many of those policies. This results in them being un-elected by their party after the election (if they lose).

Yes, this is a well-known flaw in parliamentary systems.

A new leader for a government can be elected by a very small number of people, who usually represent only one part of the electorate. There is potential there to choose a leader who is highly disapproved of by the majority of the electorate. This has been true since party leaders started being elected by party members, and even before when party leaders were elected by members of parliament, which meant a smaller number of electors (though at least they were electors who were themselves elected).

However while an extremely unpopular leader can be elected in this way, their ability to wield power is limited by a number of factors. The main one is that parliamentary leaders require the support of the their elected party members to continue to govern. Even if a leader is elected by 51% of the party ordinary members, if a significant number of the party's MPs will not support the leader then their reign is going to be very short lived. This is especially true if they attempt to execute extremely unpopular policies.

We see this taking effect with Liz Truss. The policies she proposed were extremely unpopular with the majority of the British electorate (or were going to prove extremely unpopular once the economic effects became apparent), even if the Conservative party members specifically elected her to carry out those policies. It is very likely that her MPs told her this behind the scenes and may have threatened not to support her if she continued, and the subsequent retractions were made to forestall exactly the kind of MP rebellion that took down her predecessor.

This effect is made more powerful because MPs usually want to be re-elected, and any radical departure from the policies supported by a majority of the electorate are going to make it hard for an MP to get re-elected.

Yes, this is a well-known flaw in parliamentary systems.

A new leader for a government can be elected by a very small number of people, who usually represent only one part of the electorate. There is potential there to choose a leader who is highly disapproved of by the majority of the electorate. This has been true since party leaders started being elected by party members, and even before when party leaders were elected by members of parliament, which meant a smaller number of electors (though at least they were electors who were themselves elected).

However while an extremely unpopular leader can be elected in this way, their ability to wield power is limited by a number of factors. The main one is that parliamentary leaders require the support of the their elected party members to continue to govern. Even if a leader is elected by 51% of the party ordinary members, if a significant number of the party's MPs will not support the leader then their reign is going to be very short lived. This is especially true if they attempt to execute extremely unpopular policies.

We see this taking effect with Liz Truss. The policies she proposed were extremely unpopular with the majority of the British electorate (or were going to prove extremely unpopular once the economic effects became apparent), even if the Conservative party members specifically elected her to carry out those policies. It is very likely that her MPs told her this behind the scenes and may have threatened not to support her if she continued, and the subsequent retractions were made to forestall exactly the kind of MP rebellion that took down her predecessor.

This effect is made more powerful because MPs usually want to be re-elected, and any radical departure from the policies supported by a majority of the electorate are going to make it hard for an MP to get re-elected.

There is a related effect at play in the Canadian Conservative Party, where a large number of party members support quite radical right-wing policies that would be opposed by most of the Canadian electorate. Recent leaders have won the leadership by espousing right-wing policies, but in order to stand a chance in a general election have had to abandon many of those policies. This results in them being un-elected by their party after the election.