Page 157 - DPOL202_COMPARATIVE_POLITICS_AND_GOVERNMENT_ENGLISH

Comparative Politics and Government Satyabrata Kar, Lovely Professional University

Notes
Unit 7: Constitutional Structure: Executive

CONTENTS
Objectives
Introduction
7.1 British King and Prime Minister
7.2 The President of the USA, France, Russia, China and Plural Executive of Switzarland
7.3 Summary
7.4 Key-Words
7.5 Review Questions
7.6 Further Readings

Objectives

After studying this unit students will be able to:
• Explain the constitutional condition of British King and Prime Minister
• Describe the president of the USA, France, Russia, China and Plural Executive of Switzerland.
Introduction

In politics today, the word “executive” has two meanings. One is the dictionary definition, he who
“carries out,” as in the American Constitution the president is given the duty to “take care that the
laws be faithfully executed.” Derived from the latin exsequor, meaning “follow out,” “execute” is
used by both classical authors and the Roma law in the extended and particular sense of following
out a law to the end: to vindicate or to punish. The Greek equivalents lambanein telos and ekbibazein
are also similarly used. In this primary meaning, he American president serves merely to carry out
the intention of the law, that is, the will of others—of the legislature, and ultimately of the people. But
if any real president confined himself to this definition, he would be contemptuously called an “errand
boy,” considered nothing in himself, a mere agent whose duty is to command actions according to
the law.
Going to his usual extreme, Kant has represented this meaning of the executive in the form of a
syllogism, where the major premise is the legislative will, the minor premise or “the principle of
subsumption” is the executive, and the conclusion is the judicial application to particulars. By this
syllogistic form the executive function is separated rather artificially from the judicial, but it is definitely
made subordinate to the legistive.
Yet it would be unwise for any legislature that is willing to accept Kant’s major premise to speak
openly of its executive as an errand boy, for to hurt the executive’s pride would deminish his utility.
So executive pride transcends the primary dictionary definition of “executive,” but is captured perhaps
in the phrase “law enforcement,” which suggests that carrying out the law does not come about as a
matter of course. “Law enforcement” implies a recalcitrance to law in the human beings who are
subject to it, making necessary a claim by the executive to some of the authority and majesty of the
law itself. To execute the law it is sometimes not enough for a policeman to ask politely; eschewing
the role of an errand boy, he does something impressive to make himself respected. And if a policeman
must be more than an errand boy, so too must a president.
Perhaps the authority of law is better connoted in the term “law enforcement” than is its majesty. The
end of law as stated or implied in the law (the final cause) is a noble thought which we respect, to
which we are dedicated, and for which government the idea of execution as law enforcement puts us
in fear and reminds us of the reason why laws are made (the efficient cause): to dispel fear and

152 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY