Understand Politics
Page 23
A president may also govern through the use of executive orders which enable the president to act without having to consult Congress. Executive orders cover a wide range of circumstances, from implementing the provisions of the constitution, to treaties and statutes. They may also be used to create or modify the organization or procedures of administrative agencies. The president’s power to issue such orders derives from precedents, custom and constitutional interpretation and particularly from discretionary powers embodied in legislation passed by Congress. The United Kingdom equivalent of executive orders is the use of the Royal Prerogative, but its usage is more restricted.
* * *
The American vice presidency
The American Constitution provided for a vice president who would take over on the ‘death, resignation or inability’ of the president. The circumstances under which this official would assume the office of president was subsequently expanded upon in the 25th Amendment, passed in 1967. Otherwise the vice president’s main function was to act as president of the Senate with the power to vote when there was a tie.
Traditionally, the office has not been highly regarded. However, some recent presidents have given their vice presidents a more significant role and initially the vast political experience of Vice President Cheney, compared to the relative inexperience of President George W. Bush (particularly in Washington politics), resulted in the former playing a major role in political affairs in the early part of the latter’s administration. President Obama’s vice president, Joe Biden, was initially concerned with the oversight of initiatives to combat the recession and his previous experience as chairman of the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee was put to use in connection with the administration’s Iraq policy.
Service as vice president is no guarantee of becoming president when the incumbent retires. In 1988 George Bush was the first serving vice president to be elected president since Martin Van Buren in 1836, and in 2000 Vice President Al Gore failed in his attempt to replace President Clinton when he had served his two terms in office.
* * *
Questions
With reference to either the UK prime minister or the president of the USA, what do you consider to be the main factors that limit the ability of contemporary chief executives to secure their political goals?
How might these limitations be overcome?
The chief executive’s bureaucracy
* * *
Insight
Chief executives possess their own advisers (often organized into the formalized machinery of government) who aid them in furthering their political objectives.
* * *
The scope of contemporary government requires those exercising control over it to possess detailed knowledge of complex and technical policy areas. Bureaucracies have thus been developed to serve the chief executive, enabling him or her to exert overall control within the executive branch of government. These fulfil a number of functions which include the provision of advice on policy matters. This gives the chief executive expertise which may provide leverage in dealings with the civil service employed elsewhere within the executive branch. Their role also includes performing functions designed to secure the success of policy initiatives put forward by the chief executive and they may actually implement policy in certain areas.
PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH CHIEF EXECUTIVES’ BUREAUCRACIES
While personalized bureaucracies give chief executives a greater ability to assert control over governments, we should note that there are problems associated with the role that these bodies perform. One major difficulty with such machinery is its size. As the number of staff which are employed within such a body grows, it becomes increasingly difficult for the chief executive to maintain control over its work. This was a major problem for President Reagan, whose personal reputation suffered in the ‘Iran–Contra’ affair. The president was held responsible for the actions of others that were undertaken in his name. A further danger is that such bureaucracies may insulate the chief executive from outside pressures to such an extent that they lose touch with the ‘real world’. This may damage chances of re-election to office.
A final difficulty is that the role performed by the chief executive’s advisers may eclipse that of departments headed by leading members of the government. President Nixon’s national security adviser in his first term, Dr Henry Kissinger, had a national and international profile which surpassed that of the secretary of state. Leading politicians may resent being effectively sidelined by an entourage of unelected advisers and this friction may have damaging repercussions for the stability of the government. In 1989, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, resigned because of the influence exerted by Prime Minister Thatcher’s adviser on economic affairs, Sir Alan Walters.
* * *
Examples of bureaucracies serving chief executives
In America, President Roosevelt established the Executive Office of the President in 1939. This contains three bodies – the National Security Council, the Council of Economic Advisors and the Office of Management and Budget. Their work is supplemented by the White House staff, which contains the key aides seen on a regular basis by the president.
The German chancellor has a personal department, the Bundeskanzleramt. This body is chiefly responsible for co-ordinating, planning and implementing policy and also ensures that the chancellor’s policies are disseminated throughout the party and to the general public.
The French president has a presidential office, the General Secretariat of the Presidency, which includes a number of advisers. There is also the cabinet du président which contains personal presidential aides.
The British prime minister has the Prime Minister’s Office. This contains a policy unit (sometimes referred to as the ‘Number 10 Policy Unit’) which gives advice, monitors and develops policy. The Prime Minister’s Office gives the prime minister detailed knowledge of the affairs of government and enhances his or her ability to initiate policy and exert central control over the affairs of government.
* * *
Heads of state
* * *
Insight
The role performed by a head of state is separate from that carried out by a chief executive and in many countries is carried out by a different person. In the UK, the monarch exercises the role of head of state while the prime minister is the chief executive.
* * *
There is considerable variety within liberal democracies concerning the office of head of state. In countries such as the UK, the head of state is a constitutional monarch, whose position is derived from birth. In other countries the head of state is elected. This may be direct election (as is the case in Ireland) or indirect election (as is the case in Italy where the president is elected by a college of ‘grand electors’, which includes members of both houses of parliament and regional governments). In most liberal democracies, the office of head of state is separate from that of chief executive, although in America the president occupies both roles.
A head of state performs important roles in the functioning of a liberal democracy. This official stands above party politics and constitutes the physical embodiment of the nation. This enables the head of state to provide a rallying point for national unity, which may be especially important in times of crisis or where national unity is undermined by separatist tendencies. Additionally, the head of state ensures that the system of government operates smoothly and efficiently. Many of the functions traditionally performed by a head of state are not controversial. These include receiving ambassadors from abroad and presiding over a range of official or ceremonial functions.
Typically, heads of state appoint chief executives or signify the formal approval of legislation. In most cases these are formal endorsements of decisions that have already been made, but the participation of the head of state to some extent neutralizes the party political dimension of the activity. The involvement of a head of state in selecting a chief executive, for exampl
e, seeks to suggest that this official serves the whole nation rather than the political interests which were responsible for securing the office for that person. A head of state usually possesses the ability to intervene in the conduct of political affairs. This intervention may seek to get a particularly contentious issue further examined, or the head of state may possess certain reserve powers (such as the ability to dismiss the government or dissolve the legislature) which serve to make the executive branch accountable to a higher authority for its actions. These powers are particularly important when there is an impasse in government.
An elected head of state may seek to use the authority derived from the position of an apolitical national leader to exercise a major role in a country’s political life. Mary Robinson used her tenure as president of Ireland (1990–97) to promote radical politics which improved the position of the needy and remedied the perception of women as second-class citizens.
In the following section we consider the role of the constitutional monarchy in the UK and the Commonwealth countries.
THE UK MONARCHY
The United Kingdom monarch is head of state and also head of the Commonwealth. Criticisms have been directed at this institution from both within the United Kingdom and also within the Commonwealth, most notably in Australia, where a referendum was held in 1999 that narrowly rejected establishing a republic.
Critics argue that the monarchy instils society with values that are inappropriate for a liberal democracy. It transforms ‘citizens’ into ‘subjects’ and, in particular, suggests that birth rather than merit is a key determinant of a person’s social position. The monarchy has also been condemned on grounds of cost. This has been compared unfavourably with other European constitutional monarchies, for example in Spain or the ‘bicycling monarchies’ found in Scandinavia. A key issue concerned the costs of the court and the situation whereby the head of state was above the law in tax matters. In response to such criticisms it was announced in November 1992 that Queen Elizabeth II would pay tax on her personal income and would assume responsibility for the payments made from the Civil List to most members of the Royal Family. But although the Civil List voted by parliament is a declining source of royal finance (being fixed at £7.9 million for the period 2000–10), public money is provided from other sources including grants-in-aid from several government departments. In 2008/9 it was estimated that the monarchy cost UK taxpayers £41.5 million.
Further criticisms have been levelled against the monarchy for the role it performs in contemporary government. On the one hand, it is alleged that many actions performed by the monarch are ceremonial (such as the state opening of parliament) or are performed at the behest of others (such as granting Royal Pardons, which are determined by the home secretary). On the other, fears are sometimes voiced concerning the monarch’s intervention (or potential involvement) in political affairs. The monarch’s choice of prime minister in the UK is normally confined to the leader of the largest party following a general election (or to the person elected as party leader should the prime minister die in office or resign). However, if third parties assume a more dominant role in future years, the monarch may be required to intervene more frequently in the conduct of political affairs, as has been the case in Belgium and the Netherlands. This involvement may extend to decisions relating to the dissolution of parliament or the dismissal of a prime minister. Although no UK prime minister has been dismissed by the monarch in recent years, the Australian prime minister, Gough Whitlam, was sacked in 1975 by the Queen’s representative in Australia, the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr.
A final criticism relates to the alleged remoteness of the contemporary monarchy, which may sometimes be mistaken for arrogance and aloofness.
Arguments referred to in preceding sections have led to demands for a head of state who is politically accountable for his or her actions. Opinion polls, however, suggest that the monarchy continues to enjoy a relatively high level of public approval. Supporters will claim that much of the ceremony attached to the institution aids the tourist industry, while royal tours abroad help exports. The non-partisan nature of the monarchy may also be depicted as a source of strength, enabling governments to receive impartial advice from a seasoned political observer, giving the nation a symbol to rally around. This may be important in times of national emergency, such as war, or on occasions of national rejoicing such as the VE and VJ celebrations held in 1995.
* * *
The Royal Prerogative
The existence of the monarchy justifies the continuance of the Royal Prerogative. This gives the UK government the ability to act in a number of matters without having to consult with parliament. Declarations of war or the occasional use of troops in strikes are examples of actions undertaken by governments based on the use of the Royal Prerogative.
Although there have been reforms designed to introduce an element of accountability into the use of the Royal Prerogative (such as making the work of the intelligence services accountable to parliament in the 1994 Intelligence Services Act), it is argued that it is essentially inconsistent with the operations of a liberal democratic political system since ministers may act without having to consult parliament.
* * *
The ‘Way Ahead’ group of royal advisers was established in 1992 in an attempt to respond to criticisms of the monarchy. The role of this body is to review the state of the monarchy. It is presided over by the Queen and is attended by other senior members of the Royal Family.
Question
Consider the strengths and weaknesses of directly elected heads of state.
CHIEF EXECUTIVES IN THE UK AND USA SINCE C.1945
UK prime ministers
Clement Attlee (Labour)
1945–51
Winston Churchill (Conservative)
1951–55
Anthony Eden (Conservative)
1955–57
Harold Macmillan (Conservative)
1957–63
Alec Douglas Home (Conservative)
1963–64
Harold Wilson (Labour)
1964–70
Ted Heath (Conservative)
1970–74
Harold Wilson (Labour)
1974–76
James Callaghan (Labour)
1976–79
Margaret Thatcher (Conservative)
1979–90
John Major (Conservative)
1990–97
Tony Blair (Labour)
1997–2007
Gordon Brown (Labour)
2007–10
David Cameron (Conservative)
2010–
American presidents
Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat)
1933–45
Harry S. Truman (Democrat)
1945–53
Dwight Eisenhower (Republican)
1953–61
John F. Kennedy (Democrat)
1961–63
Lyndon B. Johnston (Democrat)
1963–69
Richard Nixon (Republican)
1969–74
Gerald Ford (Republican)
1974–77
Jimmy Carter (Democrat)
1977–81
Ronald Reagan (Republican)
1981–89
George Bush (Republican)
1989–93
Bill Clinton (Democrat)
1993–2001
George W. Bush (Republican)
2001–09
Barack Obama (Democrat)
2009–
* * *
THINGS TO REMEMBER
The executive branch of government implements key decisions relating to a nation’s political affairs.
The executive branch consists of politicians and permanent officials.
Executives may be parliamentary or presidential, although in some countries such as France executives exhibit features of both systems.
Power in the executive branch of government may be exercised by one individual –
the chief executive – or a group of senior politicians who form a cabinet.
The USA has a presidential system of government and the UK has a tradition of cabinet government.
The prime minister of the UK wields considerable political power but this may be undermined by various political factors that include his or her ability to control parliament.
The American president needs to construct good working relationships with Congress in order to attain his or her policy goals.