POLITICAL EXECUTIVES

ANDLEADERSHIP
POLITICAL EXECUTIVES
• In its broadest sense, the executive is the branch of government that is responsible for
the implementation of laws and policies. More commonly, the term is now used in a
narrower sense to describe the smaller body of decision-makers who take overall
responsibility for the direction and coordination of government policy. This group of
senior figures is often called the political executive (roughly equivalent to the
government of the day, or the administration)
• The division of government into executive, legislature, and judicial institutions has
been sustained by the doctrine of the separation of powers; (each branch is vested
with separate, independent powers and responsibilities so that powers of one branch
are not in conflict with those of the other branches; it also denotes the non-
interference by the executive especially, in the affairs of the other two branches) and
has been the traditional basis on which to analyze government
From this point of view,
1. Legislatures make law; they enact legislation
2. Executives implement law; they execute the law
• In practice, the executive’s responsibilities tend to be substantially broader and more complex
than the other two branches of government. This complexity extends to the composition of the
executive
• Members of the executive have been categorized in one of two ways; 1.the “political”
executive and the “bureaucratic” executive. This highlights the distinction between
politicians and civil-servants and more broadly, between politics and administration
• Further, various levels of status and responsibility have been identified with executives.
Whereas assemblies/parliaments tend to respect the formal equality of their members,
executive branches are typically pyramidal; that is, organized according to a clear leadership
structure (executives tend to be centralized around the leadership of a single individual)
• In some cases, two separate posts may be held by the same person/executive. On the one hand,
there is the head of state; an office of formal authority and largely symbolic importance
(opening new sessions of parliament, holding honour investitures, receiving the credentials of
ambassadors, welcoming visiting heads of state etc.). On the other hand, there is the head of
government, or the chief executive; a post that carries policy-making and political
responsibilities .The executive Presidents of Guyana, France, Russia, the USA wear two hats
• In some states (parliamentary) such as the UK, the prime minister serves as chief executive,
and the post of head of state is usually held by a non-partisan figurehead the Monarch/Queen
of the UK (Westminster System), the presidents of India, Israel, Germany etc.)
• Beneath the chief executive, a range of ministers or secretaries have responsibility
for developing or implementing policy in specific areas
• There is often a hierarchy amongst the departmental bosses/ministers imposed
either by the importance of their policy areas (Finance, Foreign Affairs, Legal
Affairs, and Natural Resources and the Environment hold leading positions in
Guyana) or by their entitlement to sit in the cabinet or in senior committees
• At the lower level are the massed ranks of bureaucrats and administrators who are
concerned more with policy implementation
• Finally there are important agencies such as the police force, and armed forces,
and an array of quasi-governmental bodies. These are part of the executive insofar
as they help to put government policy into effect, but they are staffed by personnel
who enjoy formal independence from the government itself
FUNCTIONS OF POLITICAL EXECUTIVES
The general task of political executives is to provide leadership. In this sense, the executive
function as the commanding heights of the state apparatus, the core of the state itself. The
most important areas are;
1. Ceremonial leadership – Heads of state, Chief executive, and to a lesser extent Ministers
or Secretaries “stand for” the state. In giving state authority personal form, they represent
the larger society and symbolize its unity. This role is largely formal and ceremonial, and
covers for example state occasions, foreign visits, international conferences, the
ratification of treaties and legislation. Non-executive presidents and constitutional
monarchs are sometimes charged with these non-essential responsibilities, allowing other
executive officers to get on with the day-to-day business of government.
2. Policy-making leadership – The key function of the political executive is to control the
policy process. In short, the executive is expected to “govern.” The executive is looked
to, in particular, to develop coherent economic and social programs that meet the needs of
more complex and politically sophisticated societies, and to control the state’s various
external relationships in an increasingly interdependent world.
There has arguably been a growth in the executive’s legislative power, which has sometimes
encroached on the traditional responsibilities of the parliament, as political executives usually
• Popular leadership – The popularity of the political executive is crucial to the character
and stability of the regime as a whole. At the policy level, its is the ability of the executive
to mobilize support that ensures that the support and compliance of the general public.
Without support from the public or from key groups in society, policy implementation
becomes difficult, perhaps impossible. The political executive’s legitimacy is linked to the
legitimacy of the broader regime
• Bureaucratic leadership – The task of overseeing the implementation of policy means the
political executive has major bureaucratic and administrative responsibilities. In this sense,
chief executives , ministers and secretaries constitute a ‘top management” charged with
running the machinery of government. This work is organized largely along departmental
lines , senior ministers having responsibility for particular policy areas and for the
bureaucrats engaged to administer those areas. At a higher level, there is need a for policy
coordination, which is usually accomplished through the cabinet system of some kind
• Crisis leadership – A crucial advantage the political executive has over the assembly is its
ability to take swift and decisive action. When crises break out, in either domestic or
international politics, it is the executive that responds, by virtue of the hierarchical structure
and the scope it provides for personal leadership. It is therefore common for assemblies to
grant political executives near-dictatorial powers when confronted by domestic crises such
as natural disasters, terrorist threats, industrial unrest and civil disorder. They also have the
POWER IN THE EXECUTIVE: WHO LEADS?
The complex dynamics of executive power can be examined closely by looking at
roles of presidents, prime ministers and cabinets. In each of these three cases,
three dimensions of power must be borne in mind;
1. The “formal” dimension of power: the constitutional roles and responsibilities of
the executive officers, and the institutional framework in which they operate
2. The ‘informal” dimension of power: the role of personality, political skills, and
experience, and the impact of factors such as parties and the media
3. The “external” dimension of power: the political, economic and diplomatic
context of government and the broader pressures that bear on the executive branch
1. Presidents (Presidential systems of government)
• A president is a formal head of state, a title that is held in other states by a monarch or
emperor.
• A distinction must be made between constitutional presidents and executive presidents;
Constitutional presidents or non-executive presidents (found in the India, Israel and
Germany) are features of parliamentary systems and have responsibilities largely confined
to ceremonial duties. In those cases, the president is a mere figurehead, and executive
power is wielded by a prime minister and/or cabinet.
• Executive presidents combine the formal responsibilities with the political power of a
chief executive. Presidents of this kind constitute the basis of what is called “presidential
government” as opposed to parliamentary government.
• A presidential system of government is characterized by a constitutional and political
separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. The
principal features of a presidential system are; 1. the executive and the legislature are
separately elected, 2. there is a formal separation of the personnel between the legislative
and executive branches, 3. the executive cannot be removed by the legislature (except
possibly through impeachment) 4. the president or executive cannot dissolve the legislature,
and 5. executive authority is concentrated in the hands of the president
• Presidential executives may be either limited or unlimited
• Limited political executives operate within the constraints imposed by a
constitution, political democracy, party competition and some form of
separation of powers. Above all, the powers of the president is counterbalanced
by those of a popularly accountable assembly e.g., the USA. Thus, although the
president is designated head of state, chief executive, commander in chief of the
armed forces and chief diplomat, and is granted wide-ranging powers of
patronage, and the right to veto legislation, congress is invested with strong
counterbalancing powers. In particular, congress (the US) could declare war
and override presidential vetoes, and the senate was empowered to approve
appointments and ratify treaties
• The ultimate power that congress holds over the president resides in the power
of impeachment (used thrice in the US; Andrew Johnson 1868, Bill Clinton
1998, and Trump 2019/2020; all acquitted at a trial by the senate)
• An impeachment is a formal process for the removal of a public official in the
event of personal or professional wrongdoing
• In unlimited presidential executives on the other hand, the president in invested
with near-unchecked powers, meaning that these regimes are effectively
dictatorships. They are commonly found in one-party states that rest heavily on the
support of the military. Unlimited executives may be found in for example, Sudan,
Belarus, and Kazakhstan. Note; some systems hover between limited and unlimited
presidentialism e.g., Turkey
2. PRIME MINISTERS (Parliamentary systems of government)
• Most political executives of the modern world can be classified as parliamentary
executives
• Parliamentary executives govern in and through assemblies which represent the fusion
of the legislature and the executive arms of government
• More precisely it is led by a group of senior ministers chosen by, and including the
Prime Minister, collectively known as the Cabinet
• Prime ministers are the heads of government/ real executives and their mandate/
power is derived from their leadership of the majority party, or coalition of parties that
control a majority in the assembly.
• Additionally there is a monarch or constitutional / nonexecutive president who serves
as the head of state / nominal executive.
• The parliamentary executive or prime minister’s power is constitutionally defined;
however, the legislature / parliament / assembly and judiciary all act as mechanisms
that check the power of this executive, for example, policy failures can translate to lack
of support by the parliament, the parties she/he represents and the electorate
Parliamentary executives have three essential features;
1. Since executive power is derived from the assembly and closely linked to party
politics, a separate head of state in the form of a constitutional monarch or non-
executive president is required to fulfill ceremonial duties and act as a focus of
patriotic loyalty (UK Monarch)
2. The political executive is drawn from the assembly, which means that the
separation of personnel between the executive and legislature found in
presidential systems does not occur in parliamentary systems
3. The executive is directly responsible to the assembly, or at least to the lower
chamber (UK), in the sense that it survives in government only as long as retains
the confidence of the assembly
• Parliamentary executives are thus forced to govern in and through assemblies
while presidential executives tend to rely on a personal mandate and an
independent set of constitutional powers. This creates greater pressure in
parliamentary executives for collective decision-making and collaboration
Mixed presidential-parliamentary/ Semi-presidential system or dual
executive systems
• A semi-presidential system/mixed presidential-parliamentary or dual executive
system is a system of government in which a president exists alongside a prime
minister and a cabinet, with the latter being responsible to the legislature of the
state
• It differs from a parliamentary republic in that it has a popularly elected head of
state, who is more than a mostly ceremonial figurehead
• It differs from the presidential system in that the cabinet, although named by the
president, is responsible to the legislature, which may force the cabinet to resign
through a motion of no confidence
• The president serves as head of state but also wields important political powers,
including the appointment of a prime minister and cabinet to serve as the
government, Chief justices to serve the Judiciary, and can veto legislation and so on.
3. CABINETS
• A cabinet is a committee of senior ministers who represent the various
government ministries and departments
• Cabinets are an administrative device designed to ensure the effective
coordination of government policy. Cabinets enable governments to present a
collective face to assemblies and to the public.
• Without a cabinet, government could appear to be a personal tool wielded by a
single individual. Further, in the absence of a cabinet, government would consist
of rival bureaucratic empires each bent on self-aggrandizement
• The importance of cabinets vary from country to country. In some states, (the US)
cabinet serves the president by acting as a policy adviser rather than a policy-
maker.
• In contrast, the cabinet in the UK (and Guyana) is the apex of the executive
(because its deemed a cabinet government), coordinating government policy
 LEADERSHIP

• Leadership can be understood either as a pattern of behavior or a personal quality

• As a pattern of behavior, leadership is the influence exerted by an individual or

group over a larger body to organize its efforts towards the achievement of desired
goals

• As a personal attribute, leadership refers to the character traits that enable the
leader to exert influence over others; leadership is thus effectively equated with
charisma

• In both respects however, leadership requires “followership.” For a claim to

Theories of leadership

1. A natural gift: The traditional view of leadership sets it as a rare but natural gift (a
psychological phenomenon). As Aristotle puts it, men are marked out from the moment of
birth to rule or be ruled. From this perspective, leadership is strictly an individual quality
manifest in the personalities of what were traditionally thought of as “men of destiny.” The
most extreme form version of this theory is found in the fascist “leader principle.” This is
based on the idea of a single, supreme leader (always male), who alone is capable of
leading the masses to their destiny. In a modern form, this theory of leadership is embodied
in the idea of charisma or the personality of the leader. Classic examples include Gandhi,
Mandela, Hitler and Castro; modern examples include M.L King, F. Roosevelt etc.
2. A sociological phenomenon: This model sees leadership as sociological rather than
psychological phenomenon. From this perspective, leaders are “created” by particular
socio-historical forces. They do not so much impose their will on the world, but act as a
vehicle through which historical forces are exerted/applied. For example, Marxists believe
that historical development is structured largely by economic factors reflected in class-
struggle. The personalities of the leaders is thus less important than the broader class
interest they articulate. Castro, Mandela, Gandhi?
3 . An organized necessity: This theory sees leadership in largely technical terms
as a rational bureaucratic device. In this view, leadership is essentially an
organizational necessity that arises from the need for coherence, unity and direction
within any complex institution. Leadership therefore goes hand-in-hand with
bureaucracy as modern large-scale organizations require specialization, which in
turn gives rise to a hierarchy of offices and responsibilities. This bureaucratic
leadership conforms to legal-rational authority, in that it is essentially impersonal
and based on formal, usually unwritten rules. E.gs. Procurement officers, Legal
officer, Health and safety officer etc.
4. A political skill: This theory of leadership portrays leadership as an artefact; that
is, as a political skill that can be learned and practiced. Political leadership in this
sense, is akin to the art of manipulation, a perhaps inevitable feature of democratic
politics at an age of mass communication. This can be seen most graphically in the
cults of personality that were constructed to support the dictatorial leadership of
Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Stalin etc. which are somewhat seen as “manufactured”
leadership. Stalin for example, bolstered his popularity in the 1920s by building
monuments and naming streets etc. after Lenin, then later linked them to himself.
STYLES OF LEADERSHIP
• A style of leadership refers to the strategies and behavioral patterns through which
a leader seeks to achieve his/her goals
• The factors that shape the adoption of a particular leadership strategy or style
include the personality and goals of the leader, the institutional framework within
which he/she operates, the political mechanisms by which power is won and
retained, the means of communication available etc.
• Three distinctive styles of leadership have been identified;
1. Laissez-faire leadership: The chief feature of this style of leadership is the
reluctance of the leader to interfere in matters outside his/her personal
responsibility. Such leaders have a “hands off” approach to cabinet and
departmental management. The strength of this approach are that, because
subordinates are given greater responsibilities, it can foster harmony and
teamwork, and it can allow leaders to concentrate on political and electoral
matters by relieving them of their managerial burdens. On the other and, it can
lead to weak coordination of government policy, with ministers and officials
2. Transactional leadership: This is a more “hands-on” style of leadership.
Transactional leaders adopt a positive role in relation to policy-making and
government management, but are also motivated by pragmatic goals and
consideration. Such leaders act as brokers who are concerned to uphold the face of
government by negotiating compromises and balancing rival individuals.

3. Transformational leadership: With this type of leadership, the leader is not so

much a coordinator or manager as an inspirer or visionary. Not only are such
leaders motivated by strong ideological convictions, but they also have the personal
resolution and political will to put them into practice. Instead of seeking
compromise and consensus, transformational leaders attempt to mobilize support
from within government, their parties, and the general public for the realization of
their personal vision.
Primary source:

Heywood, Andrew. Politics. (5th ed.) Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019.

Chapter 14