Get complete information on he meaning and types of executives

Designed or fitted for execution, or carrying into effect; as, executive talent; qualifying for, concerned with, or pertaining to, the execution of the laws or the conduct of affairs; as, executive power or authority; executive duties, officer, department, etc. the executive branch of government has sole authority and responsibility for the daily administration of the state bureaucracy.

The division of power into separate branches of government is central to the democratic idea of the separation of powers. In many countries the term “government” connotes only the executive branch. However, this ambiguity fails to differentiate between despotic and democratic forms of government. In authoritarian systems (such as a dictatorship or absolute monarchy, where the different powers of government are assumed by one person), the executive branch ceases to exist since there is no other – branch with which to share separate but equal governmental powers.

The separation of powers system is designed to distribute authority away from the executive branch – an attempt to preserve individual liberty in response to tyrannical leadership throughout history. The executive officer is not supposed to make laws (the role of the legislature), or interpret them (the role of the judiciary).

The role of the executive is to enforce the law as written by the legislature and interpreted by the judicial system. The branch of government concerned with the execution of policy. Three types of executive may be distinguished.

Authoritarian executives vary in form according to the circumstances in which they were created and developed, but are distinctive by virtue of their powers being constrained only by the limits of the will of their members and the limits of the force at their disposal to impose that will on subject peoples.

The presidential executive of the United States, which has developed in spite of the United States Constitution, is composed of ministers and senior officials appointed by and headed by the President. The President has ultimate say on the policies advocated by the executive branch. However, following the separation of powers principle, presidential authority is constrained by a separately elected congress and by an independent judiciary whose duty is to see that executive action is not contrary to the articles of the Constitution.

The parliamentary executive, typified by the United Kingdom, is based upon the principle of cabinet government. In this, ministers are appointed and headed by a prime minister but all executive decisions are collectively made and members of cabinet are collectively answerable to the legislature from which they are drawn and whose continued support they need to stay in office.

In practice the focus of executive decision-making both within presidential and parliamentary systems is more diverse than this would suggest. Presidential government is marked by the decentralization of decision-making within the executive branch, and by a reliance on congressional support. Analysts have observed the importance of iron triangles of executive agencies, congressional committees, and key interest groups, agreement between which is crucial to the effective formulation and implementation of policy. Such networks are highly fragmented between different policy areas, making policy co-ordination difficult if not impossible. Presidential power is greatest in the initial period of a new incumbent’s tenure when public opinion may be mobilized on the back of election victory euphoria to the attainment of key election pledges.

At other times presidential initiative is concentrated on the framing of the annual budget and the prosecution of foreign policy, success in which against potential opposition in Congress is again dependent upon mobilization of public opinion and successful relations with congressional leaders. Significant impediments to presidential success have been the tendency for a President to be faced with a congress dominated by the rival party and for both parties to exhibit poor cohesion in policy aims, meaning that even a Democrat President working with a Democrat-controlled Congress will find it difficult to achieve success.

Of course, policy initiatives originating in Congress may also be, and frequently have been, blocked by the President. The incoherence of executive authority in practice continues to provide grounds for believing that, particularly in domestic policy, effective government has been sacrificed to the preservation of the separation of powers principle underpinning the Constitution. Parliamentary systems of government are also marked by a considerable range of executive decision-making foci, even in the United Kingdom. Many decisions are indeed taken by the cabinet, or cabinet committees in the name of the cabinet.

However, with the growth of government, considerable executive authority has also been exercised by individual ministers at departmental level, or senior officials acting in their name; ministers whose remit covers more than one department of government; two ministers, generally one from a spending department and one from the Treasury, who bilaterally agree upon policy; more than two ministers from different departments who have a common concern which need not be put up to the Cabinet; and party business managers, who may wield significant influence over the Prime Minister.

Where policy is decided at departmental level by ministers or officials it is also common to find selected interest groups being invited into the decision-making process either formally or informally.

The role of political advisers has increased since the 1960s. The rapid turnover in ministerial appointments, which means that few ministers occupy the same position for more than two years, contrasts with the permanence of the civil servants. Hence, it may be suggested that if executive government is not highly fragmented, then it may be highly depart mentalist.

Those analysts who in turn view the senior civil service as highly cohesive in its strategic aims may go further and say that in practice real executive authority lies with unelected officials, solutions to the problems of executive government in liberal democracies rest uneasily upon a reliance on institutional modernization from above and greater opportunities for citizen participation from below.

Whilst executives work in an age of big government they will continue to face the inevitable tensions between a small group of elected individuals attempting to control executive authority in a manner accountable to citizens and the limited capacity of those individuals to carry out executive government efficiently.

Composition of Executive:

The executive generally consists of two types of officials: (a) the political executive: i.e. President, Prime Minister, Cabinet or Council of Ministers; and (b) the permanent executive or the bureaucracy which remains in office for a – fixed period of tenure regardless of which government comes to power.

The political executive is elected directly by the people as in the U.S. where the Presidential type of government prevails, or he may be elected indirectly by the legislature as in the case of India and Great Britain. In China, the President is elected by the National People’s Congress and is the head of state and the highest ceremonial functionary of the state.

The political executive may be further divided into three categories as shown in the tabular illustration given above. It is democratic, when its members are chosen by the people and remain accountable to their constituents. For instance, the British cabinet may be removed from office by an adverse vote in the House of Commons.

The American president can also be removed from office, not through a vote of no-confidence but by the process of impeachment. Recently, President Bill Clinton of the U.S. went through the process of impeachment but was able to survive because the Senate failed to convict him.

In a totalitarian state, the real executive cannot be removed by the people or their chosen representatives. In such a state, people have no freedom to criticize or censure the conduct of the government. Today, such totalitarian states, with the executive enjoying absolute power, exist in Burma, Iraq, and Nigeria or in Afghanistan. In the past, the totalitarian regimes existed in Nazi Germany headed by Hitler or in Fascist Italy headed by Mussolini.

Finally, a colonial executive is one who acts under the authority of the colonial government.

The democratic model may be divided into two categories -parliamentary and presidential forms of government. In the parliamentary form of government, the government is run by a cabinet (under the leadership of the Prime Minister) collectively responsible to the legislature, as in India and U. K. The Head of State is a nominal executive in whose name governance is done by the cabinet. The President of India and the Queen of U. K. are nominal heads of state.

The second variety of democratic model, namely the Presidential form of government, exists in the U. S. In the United States, the basis of executive- legislature relationship is separation of powers. The President is the real executive. He is neither a member of the legislature, nor removable by it. His tenure is fixed.

In between these two models, there is the model of French executive that can be called as quasi-parliamentary as here the President is the real executive: the Prime Minister and the cabinet are under his control and, at the same time, they are accountable to the Parliament. So, the French model imbibes some features of both parliamentary and presidential forms of government.

Functions of the Executive:

In the modem political system, distrust in executive dominance has been replaced by a confidence in its leadership. Today, the classical theory of the three organs of government with equal powers needs restatement because the executive has now become the government in the real sense of the term. Among its many functions, the first and the foremost function of the executive is to run the administration of the country. The government has to ensure and maintain internal peace and order.

The executive has also to conduct external relations, make treaties with foreign states, declare war and conclude peace, mobilize troops, proclaim emergency when required, re-value or devalue currency, fix prices of essential commodities and perform other activities relating to the well-being of the people of the state.

In recent times, the executive has started performing some legislative functions also, even though this work does not fall in its domain. The executive is taking considerable initiative in drafting and proposing laws to the legislature. This is particularly true of parliamentary governments as in the United Kingdom and India. In India, the executive can issue ordinances when the legislature is not in session.

Also, the bills passed by the legislature are subject to the veto power of the Head of the State. Even in the U.S. where the separation of power prevails the President Managers to influence the legislative sphere by sending his ‘messages’ or having a bill passed by the Congress through his ‘friends’.

What has added to the expanding functions of the executive is the growth of delegated legislation. The laws made by the Parliament generally do not contain the details which are subsequently filled in by the executive. The executive also performs some judicial functions. In all the countries, the Head of the State is entrusted with the power of granting pardon or reprieve or amnesty to the offenders.

This is called his ‘Prerogative of Mercy.’ He also performs functions like the appointment of judges, and a host of disputes are also settled through administrative tribunals. In certain countries, the ministers are given the power to act like appellate tribunals. In France, there is a separate system of administrative laws and courts.

The executive also controls the ‘purse of the nation’. It is the executive which prepares the budget and presents it to the parliament for its approval. It is the executive that actually decides the taxation structure of the country the parliament only puts its seal of approval. Also it is the executive which has to see that the provisions of the budget are implemented after being passed in the Parliament. For this, the executive also has auditing and comp trolling agencies to act as the financial watchdog of the country.

The permanent executive, i.e., the bureaucracy, is involved at every stage of the decision-making process and maintains continuity in administration. Often, * the political executive depends upon the bureaucrats because of their technical expertise and knowledge.

Chester Barnard, in his work titled “The Functions of the Executive” relates the function of the executive ‘with the determination of the objectives, the initiation of policy, the manipulation of means control over the instruments of action, and stimulation of action, and stimulation of coordinated action.’

Increasing Role of the Executive:

Today, the representative democracy has been somewhat replaced by what may be termed as ‘executive democracy’ or even ‘bureaucratic democracy’, according to R. H. Crossman. The executive is the most important organ of the political organisation. As Rodee remarks. “On the one hand, the earlier enthusiasm for the wisdom and competence of representative assemblies has declined, on the other, a century or more of experience with popularly elected executive power has dissipated earlier suspicions and established confidence.

Moreover, the rapidly multiplying problems and functions of democratic governments have virtually compelled the transfer of many powers from the legislature to the executive.” This is especially the case with parliamentary democracies. The political executive, by virtue of being in the majority in the lower chamber of the legislature, is able to push through all legislations.

Strict party discipline, as in the U. K., makes the legislative control of the executive very nominal. Usually the executive is united and single whereas the members of the legislature are divided of party lines, and this gives the executive an edge over them. Greaves has said about the English model of government is largely applicable to the systems of other countries as well that the executive “has become in practice the first Chamber in our law-making mechanism.” However, the need of the hour demands a proper check on the leadership of the executive.

The fate of the political system depends on the role or the political leaders who are said to be entrusted with three important functions namely, founding, implementing and stabilizing a regime. What is thus needed is the imposition of proper checks on the authority of the executive. This will enable it to efficiently as well as properly perform the manifold functions entrusted to it which include the “creation of a welfare service, the extension of social welfare to the whom population and the ‘restoration of compassion’ in the words of Adlai Stevenson.