Comparing Executive Power in Presidential & Semi-Presidential Systems, Exams of United States History

Download Comparing Executive Power in Presidential & Semi-Presidential Systems and more Exams United States History in PDF only on Docsity!

UNDERSTANDING PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM

A COMPARISON OF AMERICAN AND FRENCH

PRESIDENCY

\

Chapter-I

Introduction Presidential form of government has become one of the leading democratic political institutions along with the parliamentary system of government. However, Presidential system exists in different forms in various countries depending upon the political situation and environment of the given time when it was established. For instance American presidency, which is regarded as the oldest and purest form of presidential government, came into being under different circumstances and situation as compared to the French presidency which is considered by the academicians as semi-presidential because of its peculiar co-existence of the presidency and the cabinet. Hence any study of presidential system will be incomplete without understanding these two different kinds of presidency. This chapter as an introduction will dwell on the theoretical aspect of leading political systems (presidential system, semi-presidential system and parliamentary system) and will further dwell on the definition of political executive and concepts like 'separation of power' and 'checks and balances' for clarity. It will also discuss the merits and demerits of presidential system and parliamentary system. Finally, the chapter will try to briefly analyse the above two mentioned presidential systems for better understanding.

(I)

DEFININITIONS AND CONCEPTS Regime Type Defined There is confusion in the existing literature as to the precise meaning and bases for classification of regime type. The classification is made only for better understanding whiie disusing and analyzing the specific criteria for each regime type. As Troxel (2002:7) argued, it is important that an analysis of the constitutional, structural, and actual powers of the president and parliament must be considered before conclusions can be made about regime type and then democratic transition or consolidation, e.g. the concept of semi-presidentialism referred to is one in between presidentialism and a system of dual powers, where the president has slightly more power than the parliament. Premier-presidentialism is better understood as a system of

Definition of Political Regime Based On Structural Factors

Political regimes cannot be classified or described accurately without considering structural factors. Structural factors employed to characterize systems vary between studies in the existing literature. There are three apparent structural factors for creating a typology of political regimes: how the executive and legislature are selected (by voting or by another body) (Lijphart 1995: 6), whether the executive (either collegial or one person) or legislature has fixed electoral mandate or is dependent on the confidence of another body (Linz and Valenzuela 1994: 6), and whether the president and parliament control the government (Duverger 1980: 166). The first two factors are the most widely accepted in the literature for classifying political systems on a structural basis. Amalgamating these theories, a presidential system, then, is one where the president is elected by voters. He/she is one person who has a fixed mandate and is not dependent on legislative confidence, and he/she directs government. In contrast, a parliamentary system has a collegial executive which is selected by the legislature and dependent on legislative confidence and parliament controls the governments. Systems with other combinations of these factors are considered to be mixed or semi- presidential forms. Olson and Norton (1996: 13) in their assessment argue that structural powers, along with constitutional and actual powers (or, what they define as attributes of policy), can demonstrate 'the ability of legislature to function actively and autonomously in the policy formation process of their respective democratic political system'. However, it is important to extend this analysis to the structural powers of the president. After all, parliamentary power is, in many respects, relative to other branches of power. It seems incomplete to consider it without explaining the president's structural powers, i.e. if the president has little opposition in parliament, he/she is better able to ensure that his/her policy agendas are passed. Conversely, if parliament has a political party or coalition with majority of votes, which opposes the president, it is more likely that it will function as an independent body. Dependent on the power of the president, it will negotiate with the president in some instances and adamantly uphold its own position in other circumstances. Only by considering the

Chapter-I

powers of both bodies can we truly understand the structural powers of th.e legislative branches in Russia.

Presidential system

The term "presidency", "presidential system" or "presidential government" was coined by Walter Bagehot in 1867 (Bogdanor 1987: 493). Presidential system is one of the greatest Americas contributions to political system. President today is a common title for the head of state of most republics, often adopted by dictators as well, whether popularly elected, chosen by the legislature or a special electoral college. There are many defmitions for presidential system. Oxford dictionary defines president as "the elected head of a republican state." In other words, president is a formal head of state, a title which is held in some states by the constitutional monarch or emperor. However, the defmition of presidentialism offered here involves a sharp distinction between two key roles found in representative governments: that of head of state and head of government. This distinction is basic because non-presidentialist systems often have elected "presidents" who are heads of state but not heads of government. In parliamentary systems, the two roles are easily distinguishable. The head of government is a prime minister, while the head of state is either a constitutional monarch or an elected president. Such "presidents" usually also serve for a fixed term and cannot be discharged by a parliamentary vote of no confidence, but this does not make their regimes presidential. "In presidentialist regimes the elected head of government always serves concurrently as head of state. A regime is presidentialist only if the effective head of government (President) is elected for a fixed term: the mode of election may be direct or indirect" (Riggs 1994: 72-152). According to Garner (1910: 190), the executive presidential system is that "in which the executive is constitutionally independent of the legislature in respect to the duration of his or their tenure and responsible to it for his or their political policies". For Heywood (2000: 179), "presidential system of government is characterised by a constitutional and political separation of powers between legislative and executive branch of government". Sartori (1987: 1) further elaborates that a polity should be

work towards a common agenda when his party controls the majority of seats in the National Assembly. When the National Assembly is controlled by opponents the president can find himself marginalized with the opposition party prime minister exercising most of the power. Though the prime minister remains an appointee of the president, the president must obey the rules of parliament, and select a leader from the majority party. Thus, sometimes the president and prime minister can be allies and at times rivals, the latter situation is known as 'cohabitation'. "Semi-presidential regime is characterised by the fact that the head of state is directly elected by universal suffrage and that he posses certain powers which exceed those of a head of state in a normal parliamentary regime, however, the government still consists of a cabinet formed by prime minister and ministers who can be dismissed by a parliam~ntary vote" (Duverger 1980: 277). Further, in 1980 he discussed the concept and established three criteria for semi-presidentialism: "a political system is considered as semipresidential if the constitution which established it combines three elements; he (president) possesses quite considerable powers; he has opposite him, however, a prime minister and ministers who possess executive and governmental power and can stay in office only if the parliament do not show its opposition to them" (Duverger 1980: 166). Bahro et al. (1998; 201-24) revised Duverger's third criterion and further say that ''the president must face a prime minister possessing executive and governmental powers and remains in office only if parliament does not express its opposition". Many scholars distinguish semipresidential as a system in which, the executive power is divided between prime minister as head of government and president as head of state where substantial executive power resides with the presidency. Among all the definitions of semi-presidentialism, Elgie (1999: 9) proposes a concise one in order to avoid the confusion of measuring the president's powers in practice. According to Elgie's definition, semi-presidentialism is where a popularly elected fixed-term president exists alongside a prime minister and cabinet who are responsible to the legislature. This definition is based on the constitutional situation and is more comprehensive than other's definitions by identifying more than 55 countries as semi-presidential (Elgie, 2007: 9).

Parliamentary System

Unlike presidentialism, parliament government was not the product of a deliberate institutional design. Rather it gradually evolved in Britain over several centuries (Gamble 1990: 407-408). The terms "Parliamentarism", "parliamentary government", and "parliamentary democracy" are often used interchangeably. The term "parliamentary government" was not used until 1832 in Britain (Kaare et al. 2003: 9). Many (competing) terms were used by scholars instead of parliamentary government, including "representative government" (Mill 1861 : 240), "responsible government" and "cabinet government" (Bagehot 1867: 206). Parliamentary regimes are characterised by a number of specific and interrelated institutional features, many authors, including Bryce (1921). Loewenstein (1957), Verney (1959), have sought to provide comprehensive definitions of parliamentary government. Despite differences they all agree on following criteria:

1. Dual executive split between the head of state and the head of government.
2. Parliament has formal or informal investiture powers.
3. The cabinet is a collective decision making body.
4. Cabinet ministers are usually also members of parliament.
5. Parliament has control over cabinet.
6. The parliamentary majority can force the cabinet to resign.
7. This power is in most cases is balanced by the prime minister's power to dissolve the parliament.

Many contemporary scholars are still trying to defme the parliamentary system. Lijphart (1984: 68) defines it as 'a form of constitutional democracy in which executive authority emerges from, and is responsible to, legislative authority'. Similarly, Sartori (1987: 101) states that 'parliament is sovereign" under Parliamentarism and that this regime type requires "government to be appointed, supported and, as the case may be, dismissed by parliamentary vote'. Stephan and Skach (1993: 3) define parliamentary regime as a system of mutual dependence: "1) the chief executive power must be supported by a majority in the legislature ~d is removed with a vote of no confidence. 2) The executive power (normally in conjunction with the head of state) has the capacity to dissolve the legislature and call

Chapter- I

and. judicial. 3 To Montesquieu, separation of powers is an institutional arrangement that ensures the. rule of law and there by the liberty and security of the individual. Earlier Locke also talked about separation of powers. He regarded the judicial power as part of the executive but recognized an additional power he calls the "federative", which deals with what we would today describe as foreign policy or national security. In practice, though, the same person or persons usually wield the executive and federative powers; thus, the fundamental distinction is between executive and legislative power. 4 Separation of power refers to the independent authority of the executive and legislative and judicial branches where "each branch possesses certain powers for the efficient disposition of issues of public policy and private dispute and to enhance the public's confidence in the fairness of the process that led to those dispositions" (Campbell and Campbell 2004: 1). Haggard and^ ( McCubbins (2001: 1) assert "Separation of powers can be thought of as the extent to which different components of government have the ability to exert influence through the exercise of a veto on the formation of public policy". The separation of power proposes that the three chief functions of government (legislation, execution, and adjudication) should be entrusted to separate branches of government viz. legislature, executive, and judiciary respectively. In formal sense the separation of power demands independence, in which there should be no overlap of personnel between the branches. 5 However, it also implies interdependence, in the form of shared powers to ensure that there are checks and balances- a mechanism in which the equilibrium between parts of the system of the .government is maintained, not only simply by juxtaposing them, but by giving each branch a means of influencing or controlling the other (Bogdanor, 1987: 88-89).

3

4

s

Although there was separation of powers in the earlier times, the doctrine became popular and it was put into use in strict sense with Montesquieu's publication of The Spirit of Laws in 1784. For further detail discussion, see John Locke, Treatises of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration, republished digitally in 2005 by Digireads.com, 115-116. For further detail discussion, see Gwyn, W. B (1971), The Meaning of Separation of Power, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

_Chapter;I

Separation of power between the three organs of the state viz. Legislature, Judiciary and executive is the defining feature of presidential system. It is applied most strictly in the American presidential system. The framers of the American Constitution were influenced by the writings of Locke and Montesquieu, the new constitution was an innovation, based on principles derived from modern political Science (Haggard and McCubbins 2001: 3).

Executive (Political) Daintith and Page (1999: 2) believe that ''the executive governs us; it comprise the individual-mostly ministers and civil servants-who actually control, from day to day, the state's instruments of coercion, wealth and infm;mation". Like wise according to Gargan (2000: 131) "Political executive is understood to mean that these executive positions operate at the extreme end of public continuum characterized as the ·state. These positions have been granted by public authority emanating from constitutional or legislative mandates to oversee governmental operations". The political executive, in its broadest sense, is the branch of government responsible for the implementation of laws and policies made by the parliament. The executive branch extends from the head of government, or chief executive to the members of the enforcement agencies. 6 More commonly, the term is now used in a narrow sense to describe the smaller body of decision makers who take overall responsibility for the direction and coordination of the government policies (Heywood 2000: 201) However, the organisation of the political executive differs significantly depending whether it operates on presidential or parliamentary system of government. The executive is organized in different countries on the basis of its relationship with the legislature - presidential and parliamentary executive.

(^6) For more detail discussion, see Hague, R and M. Harrop (1982), Comparative Government, London: Macmillan.

According to Mainwaring and Shugart, presidential form of government can also reduce political conflict because the assembly is elected independent of the executive. Legislators can consider bills based on their merits rather than on their effect on the fate of the prime minister and the government because the tenures of the executive and the assembly are not tied in a presidential system. In their view, the mutual independence of parliament and the executive can make political conflict more manageable (Mainwaring and Shugart 1997: 37). Empirically, the skeptics of parliamentarism point to democratic breakdowns in the parliamentary governments of inter-war Europe to bolster their argument. They also question the strength of quantitative studies that support parliamentarism by noting that these studies sometimes include micro-states that tend to be parliamentary, because small country size has been shown to be conducive to democracy. They question the importance of parliamentary government for democratic consolidation in these settings (small countries). Moreover, they observe that these studies typically suffer from "selection bias and hence, spurious correlation" (Mainwaring and Shugart 1997: 19). They argue that because parliamentary governments were more frequent ) than presidential governments in societies with background conditions conducive to democracy (e.g. small, wealthy populations) it is difficult to analyze the independent impact of parliamentarism on democratic stability and consolidation. They add that since Latin America is dominated by presidential regimes and have background conditions that are not conducive to democracy, selection bias may be a real danger in quantitative studies that lack proper controls. Burke visualised parliamentary government as a system functioning under the leadership of a compact but public spirited minority, which in general the country was willing to follow, with parliament mainly a place where the leaders of this minority could be criticized and called to account by their party but in the interests of the whole country. At the same, time his views permitted some sound criticism of representative government as it then existed. He pointed out that "parliament is too a great detail". 7

(^7) Burke quoted in Parkin, Charles (1956), The Moral Basis of Burke's Political Thought, Cambridge University Press: 147.

Criticism of Presidentialism

Since World War-II, string of presidential regimes in various parts of the world have collapsed into authoritarian rule. This has led to sharp polemic among scholars on the subject of whether presidential or parliamentary democracy is a better form of representative government. Some of the arguments put forth against presidential system are: presidency gives one person too much of power and discourages consensus because politics becomes a game of "the winner takes all" (Bogdanor 1987: 493). 8 The separation of powers gives way to conflict as it estranges presidents from legislature. Further, the executive and the legislature may fall under the control of different parties and thus produce the possibility of a deadlock between them over certain important issue (Hitchner and Harbold 1965: 330). With fixed incumbency, any ordinary cabinet crisis becomes an institutional and constitutional crisis, because there is no legitimate way to get rid of a bad president before his term expires i.e. it makes the system rigid. Since, presidents may appoint officials, and enjoy rights to legislative initiative and of veto along with fixed term of office, they retain power despite virtual loss of party support (Robinson 2002: 72). Hence, presidential system leads to the neglect of party development. 9

Advocates of parliamentarism The advocates of parliamentary government stress that it encourages democratic form of conflict resolution; development of lively party system; clear formulation of alternative policy choices; constant scrutiny of government; prevents and allows mistakes to be corrected and extremes to be tempered. They claim that the strength of the parliamentary government is that it delivers responsible government. The responsible government is maintained because the government can govern as long as it retains the confidence of the parliament. Thus, parliamentary system creates an executive which is an excellent vehicle through which popular mandate can be expressed (Hitchner and Harbold 1965: 321). Moreover, parliamentary government is often seen to promote democracy, in which the parliament plays a vital deliberative 8 9

For further detail in support of presidential government see, Cronin, T. E. ( 1980 ), Tfze State of The Presidency, Boston: Little Brown. For further debate see, Heclo, H. and Salamon {1982), The Illusion of Presidential Government, Boulder: Westview Publishers.

Criticism of parliamentarism

The criticism put forth against the parliamentary form of government rests on its association with the problem of executive domination, if the executive has majority and can maintain party discipline. It is alleged that in this event, the parliament can be reduced to little more than a 'talking shop' and its member become mere 'lobby fodder.' Further the critics say that parliamentary system also leads to political instability. This usually occurs when the party system is fractured; Likewise, lack of fixed tenure of office for cabinet creates a degree of uncertainty. They point out that French fourth republic 1945 - 58 is best example where 25 governments came and went in 13 years (Heywood 2000: 174). Moreover, the parliamentary system is unpredictable in terms of continuity of policy for a definite period. They also say that due to the absence of a separation of powers that sets apart legislature and the executive branches, there is lack of means to prevent one branch from overextending itself. Thus, a common consequence tends to be a failure to achieve equilibrium between the two branches of the government(Hitchner and Harbold 1965: 322). Both parliamentary and presidential systems have their advantages and disadvantages. Experience shows that both the systems of government have worked successfully in and around the world, although they face difficulty and inconsistency in some other countries. In fact, the success or the failure of any system depends much on the condition under which it came into existence and situation within which it functions. Renewed theoretical and empirical debates continue over the merit of "presidentialism and parliamentarism", which began more than 15 years back with the Linz (1994) 11 article "Presidential or Parliamentary Democracy: Does it Make a Difference?" Academicians are yet to resolve conclusively the fundamental question asked in the title. While there are still debates on the merits of presidentialism and Parliamentarism, an impressive body of research is growing on the workings of each of these political systems (Shugart and Carey 1992; Mainwaring and Shugart 1997; and Cheibub 1999). Work in this area has even begun to exhibit some points of agreement. First, scholars seem to agree that there is a need to know more about how

II (^) Linz, Juan l (1994), "Presidential or Parliamentary Dem:ocracy: Does It Make a difference?" in Juan J. Linz and Arturo Valenzuela, eds., The Failure of Presidential Democracy: Comparative Perspective Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 3-87.

parliamentary and presidential regimes actually function before making strong claims about their ability to influence the consolidation and stability of democracy. Second, one needs to examine how other variables interact with the institutional setting to promote particular outcomes.

(III)

THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY One of the American contributions to political invention is the presidential type of chief executive that came into· existence in America in 1789. Any study on presidential system, therefore, can hardly be complete without reference to constitutional system of the United States of America (USA). One of the main features of American constitution of 1789 is the separation of executive from the legislature. This was done in order to guard against the risk of concentrating powers in the hands of single man or set of men. Although the constitution framers almost unanimously agreed on the need for a strong central government and greatly empowered Congress, they did not agree upon the proper role of the president. Distrust of the chief executive led to the constitution's. intentionally vague prescription for the president's power (Friedrich 1974: 398-402). In contrast to many countries with parliamentary forms of government, where the office of president or head of state is mainly ceremonial, in the United States of America, the president is vested with great authority and in present times he is arguably the most powerful elected official in the world. But the nation's founders originally intended the presidency to be a nmowly restricted institution. They distrusted executive authority because their experience with colonial governors had taught them that executive power was inimical to liberty. They also considered a strong executive to be incompatible with the republicanism embraced in the Declaration of Independence (1776). Accordingly, their revolutionary state constitutions provided for only nominal executive branches, and the Articles of Confederation (1781-89), 12 the frrst "national" constitution, did not have provision for executive branch.

(^12) See American constitution of 1781, [Online: web] Accessed 23 February 2006 URL: http://www.usconstitution.neticonst.html

amendment rectified on 23of January 1933 14 and was further Amendment by 25th Constitutional Amendment rectified on 10 February 1967. 15 Accordingly, after the 20 and 25 constitutional amendment the paraphrasing law of succession reads as, "In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected" (Article II section 1).

President's Cabinet It is .obvious that the position of the cabinet in the United States is very different from that in Switzerland. The American cabinet consists of the head of departments (Fenno 1959: 252-255). Since Washington's administration, they have been president's secretaries. The president appoints the cabinet. According to Article II section 2 "he (president) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate ... public Ministers and Consuls ... and all other Officers of the United States", beyond this nothing has been said by the constitution about the president's cabinet. Yet the exigencies of party support give certain secretaries a position of their own. Often the choice fell upon men whom the president owes his election victory. It is unrealistic to look upon them as merely the administrative subordinates of the president. Today, they are of vital importance to him in his national representative function. It is only through them that he can associate with himself a number of different social forces, wl:tich make up the support of his political party. Overall, the president must take into account personalities which have become associated with broad groupings in the electorate in order to make his administration representative ·Of the nation.

14 15

For further details on 20th American Constitutional amendment, see [Online: web] Accessed 23 February 2006 URL: http://www.usconstitution.net/consthtmi#Am For further details of 25th American Constitutional amendment. see [Online: web] Accessed 23 February 2006 URL: http://w\vw. usconstitution.net/consthtml# Am J 5

The growth of president's power and institutionalised policy control, having been invested with monocratic powers, no president is likely to distribute this power to others. If a particular president should, out of indolence or altruism, move in that direction, his successor is likely to redress the balance on assuming office. The concentrated powers of the American president are a part of the pattern of constitutional relationship established by the separation of powers. Tl;ley are durable only because the pattern provides other restrains through limiting the concentrated powers themselves. It is another method of coping with the greatest problem which (in the opinion of many liberal thinkers) confronts free peoples: how to enable the citizens at large to conduct and control the executive business of the government. Nevertheless, these meager constitutional powers (which have grown enormously over the period of time) when coupled with the president's own personal style and abilities allow him to lead the nation. 16 The presidential system of government in United States of America is unique. The constitutional authority, statutory powers, and a burden of the presidency make it a powerful position with awesome responsibility (O'Connor and Sabato 2000: 264). Hence, the more carefully this office is studied the more its unique character appears (Laski 1940: 23).

Powers and Functions One of the remarkable features of the American political system is the concentration of governmental (executive) function in the office of presidency, one of the reasons being that the constitution assigns the role of"The executive Power..." to the president (Article II Section 1). Therefore, American presidency is frequently characterised as one of the most powerful single office in the contemporary politics. The tremendous potential underlying in the office of the president and the demand of presidency on the man who occupies the office is not only because of the president being the 'administrative head'. It is also because, "the general structure and the mode of operation of American politics have thrust upon the presidential office a combination of functions and responsibilities that has no parallel in other constitutional democracies" (Harvard 1996: 60).

(^16) For more debate on the personality, see George, Alexander L. (1975), "Assessing Presidential Character," in Wildavsky (ed.), Perspective on the Presidency, Boston: Little brown.