Page 172 - DPOL202_COMPARATIVE_POLITICS_AND_GOVERNMENT_ENGLISH

Unit 7: Constitutional Structure: Executive

the British king can do no wrong, the American President can. In other words, it means that while the Notes
British monarch is like a ‘magnificent cipher’ doing hardly anything more than placing signatures on
the papers prepared by the ministers, the American President rules according to his best judgement.
He nominates his ministers and may remove them. He sends messages to the Congress and veto a
bill though passed according to the intent shown therein. He makes important declarations relating
to war and peace and signs treaties with foreign countries that he may submit for Senatorial ratification,
or not by designating them as ‘executive agreements’. Thus, the powers of the American President
are vast so much so that by his critics he is labelled as ‘the elected dictator for four years’.
True that the American President is far more powerful than the British monarch, the former is less
powerful than the latter in certain other respects. The American President is elected for a term of four
years and that one person cannot enjoy more than two terms. In contrast to this, the tenure of the
British monarch is permanent and hereditary. Moreover, the monarch has a mystic aura of glory that
a President may never possess. Being a man of politics, the President is treated as a partisan person.
As such, his actions are criticised and he may be removed from office by the process of impeachment.
Opposed to this, the British monarch is treated as ‘above polities’; he remains immune from public
criticism and the people offer him their sincere loyalty. Hence, the American President cannot enjoy
the position of a ‘dignified executive’ that is enjoyed by the English sovereign.
The points of resemblance and difference between the two may be easily mentioned after having a
study of the American President versus British Prime Minister. Both are elected officials with supreme
actual authority in their respective States. Thus, both are mighty figures in their respective States,
both exercise leadership, both face public criticism, and both may be removed from office for certain
acts of commission or omission. In fine, both govern and remain accountable for that. However, the
points of difference between the two are vital that show each being more as well as less powerful
than the other in certain important respects. For this purpose we may examine their position in the
following directions:
1. In the sphere of administration, the American President is more powerful than the British Prime
Minister. We have seen that the British Prime. Minister is bound by the principle of collective
responsibility. He has to bank upon the advice and cooperation of his colleagues. Moreover,
the fact of Cabinet’s being responsible to the Parliament restricts the executive powers of the
Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is always under the searching criticism of the Parliament.
His policies must be approved by it. At any time the House may pass a vote of censure against
the government, or the weight of public criticism may force him to quit or remove his
controversial minister. In this way, executive authority of the Prime Minister is subject to the
control of the Parliament. Different from this, the American President uses his executive powers
independently. Nominations as well as foreign treaties made by him are ratified by the Senate
as a matter of courtesy. His ministers are like his ‘personal servants’. He acts according to his
best judgement. Being the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, he may mobilise troops
and make declarations regarding the conclusion of war or peace. The process of impeachment
is too tedious that has so far remained virtually an otiose affair, while several Prime Ministers
or their leading ministers have been removed or forced to quit by an adverse vote or unforgiving
mood of the Parliament.
2. The British Prime Minister is more powerful than the American President in the legislative
sphere. We have seen that the Cabinet decides about the time and dates of the session of the
Parliament; inaugural address of the monarch is prepared by the Cabinet; daily proceedings of
the House are conducted according to the time table prepared by the Cabinet; bills and resolutions
are passed by the Parliament owing to the existence of majority behind it; and, above all, there
is no fear of royal veto as the monarch acts on the advice of his ministers. It shows that the
Prime Minister (along with his Cabinet) has usurped the inherent powers of the Parliament. In
clear contrast to it, the American President can not usurp the powers of Congress. Though he
may send messages to the Congress, or he may get certain bills passed by it, or that he may veto
a bill passed by it, or that he may influence its working by some shrewd tractics like those of
lobbying or charm of the patronage, but he cannot be a master of the national legislature. Instances
are there when the Congress turned down what the President desired in his message, or that an

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 167