Difference Between Party Discipline And Party Cohesion

Members of Parliament are responsible for holding the government accountable for their actions and decisions. The need for party cohesion began when servers like small parties merged together, in order to pass legislation they needed full party support. Party discipline arose as means to force cohesion in the early stages of a new party (Hazan 2003, 3). Party discipline is still used to present a united party image, as a result there is not a mechanism to hold government accountable.

Accountability, in a general sense, is accepting responsibility for ones actions therefore government accountability is a government being liable for their conduct. In terms of government accountability it is understood that the executive is the government and
The literature explains that party discipline and party cohesion are used interchangeably, although Hazen suggests a fundamental difference. Cohesion is the level of bonding between members to achieve a common goal whereas party discipline is forced cohesion through the use rewards and punishments (Hazen 2003, 3). Party discipline arose as a result of party mergers in the 1990's, it was imperative to the success of the party in passing legislation that every member supports the party. When merged parties were not ideologically the same, one party was very much to the right and the other was more toward the centre, the need for cohesion increased. The party whip is responsible for ensuring that every member is aware of how the executive expects them vote, mergers increased the importance of the party whip (Malloy 2000, 117 -
The second is a result of discipline. Rather than hold the government to account it appears the job of the members of parliament is to ensure that the united image of the party doesn't waiver. Once a member has been elected they are brought into a team and are encouraged to always support the team. By encouraging members to buy into being a part of the team two main things are accomplished. The first is that because everyone feels as though they are included the level of cohesion increases also the chance the members are going to rebel decreases. It is made clear that part of being on the team includes voting with the party (Hazan 2003, 3 - 4; Malloy 2000, 119; Rathgeber 2014, 107). Rewards are given to members who openly support the party, are vocal in their support of legislation, always vote with the party, and defend the position of the party. The executive will reward members that maintain party cohesion with desirable committee appointments, the potential for cabinet appointments, a corner office, and travel opportunities (Carey 2007, 93; Rathgeber 2014, 111). Conversely when members criticize or vote against the party discipline is used to control the members of their caucus (Hazan 2003, 1). Aside from suspension or expulsion of a member the government can use other disciplinary measures to deter any future moves against the party (Malloy 2000, 119). Outspoken members