Executive: Definition, Functions and Types of ExecutiveBy K.K Ghai Political ScienceAdvertisements:

Executive: Definition, Functions and Types of Executive!The second but most powerful organ of the government is the Executive. It is that organ which implements the laws passed by the legislature and the policies of the government. The rise of welfare state has tremendously increased the functions of the state, and in reality of the executive. In common usage people tend to identify theexecutive with the government. In contemporary times, there has takenplace a big increase in the power and role of the executive in every state.What is Executive?The term ‘Executive’ has been defined both in its broad and narrow forms. In its broad form, it is taken to mean all the functionaries, political power-holders (Political Executive) and permanent civil servants who undertake the execution of laws and policies and run theadministration of state.In its narrow form, it is taken to mean only the executive heads (ministers i.e. the political Executive), who head the government departments, formulate the policies and supervise the implementation of the laws and policies of the government. In the narrow form, the civil service and its administrative functions are not included in the realm of the Executive.Traditionally, only the narrow meaning used to be accepted by the political scientists. However, in modern times, the executive is defined in its broader form and it covers both the Political Executive as well as the Civil Service.Executive: Definition: (1) “In a broad and collective sense, the executive organ embraces the aggregate or totality of all the functionaries and agencies whichare concerned with the execution of the will of the state as that will has been formulated and expressed in terms of law.” Garner(2) “In its broadest sense, the executive department consists of all government officials except those acting in legislative or judicial capacity. It includes all the agencies of government that are concerned with the execution of states will as expressed in terms of law.” GettellThese two definitions make it clear that executive includes the political executive (Ministers and Head of State) and the non-political permanent executive (Civil Service or Bureaucracy). The political executive performs the function of making policies and

ensuring that all the laws are properly enforced by all the departments of the government.The permanent executive i.e. bureaucracy/civil service runs the day-to- day administration and works in government departments. It works under the supervision and control of the political executive.Two Parts of Executive: Political Executive & Permanent Executive: Distinction: (i) The Political Executive (Ministers): It consists of the executive head of the state and other heads of theexecutive departments is ministers. Ministers are political leaders. They are mostly elected representative of the people and responsible for all their decisions and policies before the public. Political Executive work for a fixed tenure of about 5 years.It acts as a temporary executive in the sense that it changes after every election. After completing one tenure, ministers have to again contest elections. They can again become ministers only when the party to which they belong returns to power as the majority party.The ministers are amateurs, non-experts and non-professionals. Their function is to formulate policies and get these policies and laws approved from the Legislature. Thereafter these policies and laws of the State are implemented by the civil servants, who work under the control of Political Executive. The political executive heads the government. Each minister is head of a department or some of the government.(ii) The Non-political Permanent Executive (Civil Servants): It consists of the civil servants (Bureaucracy) from the lowest to the highest levels. It carries out the day to day administration by working in the government departments. The civil servants are politically neutral. They do not owe allegiance to any political party.Their job is to carry out the laws and policies of the government without any political consideration. They are specially educated and trained persons. They are experts and professionals. They give expertadvice and opinion as well as collect, classify and present data to the political executive on the basis of which the latter takes all decisions.Once appointed, the civil servants remain in office till the attainment of the retirement age, usually up to the age of 55 or 60 years. They get regular and fixed salaries and are hierarchically organised into higher and lower relationships.Functions of the Executive: 1. Enforcement of Laws: The primary function of executive is to enforce laws and to maintain law and order in the state. Whenever a breach of law takes place, it is the responsibility of the executive to plug the breach and bring the offenders to book. Each government department is responsible for the implementation of the laws and policies concerning its work. For maintaining law and order in the state, the executive organises and maintains the police force.2. Appointment-making Functions:

All major appointments are made by the chief executive. As for example, the President of India appoints the Chief Justice and other Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. Ambassadors, Advocate General of India, Members of Union Public Service Commission, Governors of States etc.Likewise, the President of the United States makes a very large number of key appointments. All the secretaries who head various government departments, Judges of the Supreme Court and other FederalCourts, the Federal officials in the States etc., are appointed by the US President. However, all such appointments require the approvalof the US Senate (Upper House US Congress i.e. Parliament).The members of the civil service are also appointed by the Chief executive. This is, usually, done on the recommendation of a service recruitment commission. In India, the Union Public Service Commissionannually holds competitive examinations for All India Services, Central Services and Allied Services.It recruits on merit, candidates for appointment to these cadres. Theappointments are done by the Chief executive in accordance with the recommendations of the UPSC. Similar practice prevails in almost all the states. As such appointment-making is a function of the executive.3. Treaty-making Functions: It is the responsibility of the executive to decide as to which treaties are to be signed with which other countries. The executive negotiates the treaties in accordance with the procedure defined by international law and also in accordance with the provisions the constitution of the state.Each treaty is signed by a member of the executive. Most of the treaties also require ratification by the legislature of the State. It is again the responsibility of the executive to secure legislativeapproval for the treaties signed by it.4. Defence, War and Peace Functions: One of the key functions of the state is to defend and preserve the unity and integrity of the country and protect it in the event of an external aggression or war. It is the responsibility of the executiveto undertake this work. To organise military for the defence of the state, to prepare for and fight the war, if it becomes necessary, andto negotiate and sign peace settlement after every war, are the functions performed by the executive.The executive is the final judge of the nature of the threat to the security of the country. It has the prime responsibility to take all such steps as are needed in the interest of the security and integrity of the state. The chief executive of the state is also the supreme commander of the armed forces of the state.5. Foreign Policy-making and the Conduct of Foreign Relations: In this age of ever-increasing global interdependence, it has become one of the most important functions of a government to formulate the foreign policy of the state and to conduct foreign relations. This function is also performed by the executive.The executive formulates the goals of national interest and fixes thepriorities. It first formulates the foreign policy of the nation and

then implements it for securing the defined goals of national interest. The executive appoints the ambassadors of the state to other states.6. Policy-making: Modern welfare state has to carry out a large number of functions forsecuring the socio-economic-cultural development of its people. It has to formulate policies, prepare short-term and long-term plans andimplement these. All actions of the state are guided by definite policies and plans.It is the executive which undertakes the task of policy-making and developmental planning. These are the two most important functions ofthe executive, because by these the state carries out its objective of promoting the welfare of its people.7. Functions relating to Law-making: Law-making is primarily the function of the legislature. However, theexecutive also plays a role in law-making. In this sphere too the role of the executive has been increasing by leaps and bounds. In a parliamentary system, the ministers are also members of the legislature and they play a leading role in law-making.Most of the bills for legislation are introduced and piloted by them in the legislature. Most of the time of the legislature is spent in passing the governmental bills. The bills passed by the legislature become laws only after these are signed by the Head of the State.8. Law-making under the system of Delegated Legislation: The system of delegated legislation has considerably increased the law-making role of the executive. Under this system, the legislature delegates some of its law-making powers to the executive. The executive then makes rules on the basis of these powers. The amount of delegated legislation made by the executive far out-weighs the laws passed by the legislature.9. Financial Functions: It is the legislature which is the custodian of all finances. It has the power to impose, or reduce or eliminate a tax. However, in actualpractice, the executive exercises a number of financial functions. Ithas the responsibility to prepare the budget. It proposes the levy ofnew taxes or changes in tax structure and administration. It collectsand spends the money as sanctioned by the legislature.The executive decides the ways and means through which the money is to be collected and spent. It formulates all economic policies and plans. It takes suitable measures for regulating the production and distribution of goods, money supply, prices and exports and imports. It contracts foreign loans, negotiates foreign aid and maintains the financial credibility of the state.10. Some Semi-Judicial Functions: The appointment of judges by the executive is regarded as the best method for ensuring the independence of judiciary. In almost all democratic systems, the chief executive has the power to appoint judges. Further, he has the right to grant pardon, reprieve and amnesty to criminals. Under the system of administrative adjudication, the executive agencies have the power to hear and decide cases involving particular fields of administrative activity.

11. Grant of Titles and Honours: Another important function of the executive is to grant titles and honours to the people in recognition of their meritorious services tothe nation. Such persons who do commendable work in their respective spheres of activity—Art, Science, Literature etc. are granted titles by the executive.It also grants titles to such defence personnel who show exemplary courage and devotion to duty during war or peace. Even ordinary citizens are granted honours in recognition of their meritorious workfor the society. All decisions in this respect are taken by the executive. These are the major functions performed by the Executive. Executive has indeed emerged as the most powerful organ of the government.Types of Executive: 1. Nominal/Titular and Real Executives: The difference between the nominal/titular and real executives is made only in a parliamentary system of government. In it, the head ofstate, the President or the Monarch, is the nominal executive and theCouncil of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister is the real executive. All the powers are legally the powers of the nominal executive but in practice these are exercised by the real executive.The nominal executive is not responsible for its actions as these areperformed in its name by the real executive. The real executive is responsible for all the actions of the nominal executive. The nominalexecutive is the ceremonial and dignified part of the executive, whereas the real executive is its powerful part.2. Hereditary and Elected Executives: When the executive assumes office by the law of hereditary succession, it is called the hereditary executive. When the executiveis directly or indirectly elected by the people for a fixed period oreven for life, it is called the elected executive. In Britain, Japan and Malaysia there are hereditary chief executives. In India, USA, Germany and many other states there are elected chief executives.3. Single and Plural Executives: When all the executive powers are in the hands of a single functionary/leader, it is called a single executive. In India, Britain, USA, Australia, France and many other states there are single executives. In India, all the executive powers are with the President of India. Likewise under the US Constitution, the executivepowers are with the President of the United States of America.When the executive powers are vested with a group of persons or in a committee/council/commission and these are collectively exercised by all the members of this commission/council, the executive is called the Plural Executive. As for example, in Switzerland all the executive powers have been given to the Federal Council which consists of seven members. All the members collectively exercise all the executive powers.4. Parliamentary and Presidential Executives:

The distinction between the parliamentary and presidential executivesis made on the basis of relationship between the legislature and executive.In Parliamentary Executive there is: (i) A close relationship between legislature and executive and members of the executive are also members of the legislature,(ii) The members of political executive is individually and collectively responsible before the legislature,(iii) The tenure of the political executive is not fixed as it can beat any time removed by the legislature, and(iv) The legislative can be dissolved by the executive.In a Presidential Executive, there is: (i) Separation of powers between the executive and the legislature;(ii) The membership of the two organs is incompatible i.e. member of one cannot be a member of the other;(iii) The executive is not responsible to the legislature; and(iv) Neither can dissolve nor remove the other.The parliamentary executives are functioning in India, U.K., Canada, New Zealand, Australia and several other states. In the United Statesof America, the executive is presidential. In France there is a mixture of these two forms of Executive.Advertisements:Related articles:

1. The State Council of Ministers: it’s Power and Functions 2. Governor of a State: Functions and Position of the Governor 3. 5 Powers of the State Legislative Assembly – Explained! 4. State Council of Ministers: Formation, Categories and Other

Details 5. Chief Minister: Method of Appointment, Functions and Position 6. Top 9 Functions of the Parliament of India – Explained! 7. Prime Minister of India: The Real Executive 8. Union Parliament: Composition and Functions of the Union

Parliament 9. The Chief Minister: Appointment, Power, Function and Position 10. State Legislature: Organisation, Powers and Limitations

on the Powers of State Legislature ExecutiveNo comments yet.Leave a Reply You must be logged in to post a comment.

Before publishing your articles on this site, please read the following pages:1. Content Guidelines 2. Prohibited Content 3. Plagiarism Prevention 4. Image Guidelines 5. Content Filtrations 6. TOS 7. Privacy Policy 8. Disclaimer 9. Copyright 10. Report a Violation

Latest Cost and its Appropriate Classifications May 2, 2015 Cost Incurrence and Cost Recognition |Difference May 2, 2015 Role of Management Accounting in Banks and Merchandiser May 2,

2015 Financial Accounting: Definition and Limitations May 2, 2015 Role of Management Accountant, Controller and Treasurer May 2,

2015Advertisements© 2015 YourArticleLibrary.com: The Next Generation Library. All Rights Reserved.

Politics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people interested in governments, policies, and political processes. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Differences between parliamentary and presidential government

up vote 10 down vote favorite

What are the main differences between the parliamentary system of government versus the presidential system? For example, Germany's parliamentary system versus Mexico's presidential system. I'm particularly interested in the pros and cons of each.democracy presidential parliamentary

share improve this question

edited Dec 5 '12 at 19:41

asked Dec 5 '12at 1:56

Michael Mrozek1,699923

Alberto Bonsanto1,08331027

add a comment 1 Answer active oldest votes up vote 12 down vote accepted

The major difference between these two systems is that in a Presidential system, the executive leader, the President, is directly voted upon by thepeople (Or via a body elected specifically for the purpose of electingthe president, and no other purpose), and the executive leader of the Parliamentary system, the Prime Minister, is elected from the legislative branch directly.In the Presidential System, it is more difficult to enact legislation, especially in the event that the President has different views than the legislative body. The President only responds to the people, the legislative branch can't really do anything to threaten the President. As a result, he can make it more difficult for the legislative body to do anything.In the Parliamentary system, if the Parliament doesn't like the Prime Minister, they can cast a vote of no confidence and replace him. This tends to make the executive leader subservientto the Parliament.Bottom line is, if you believe that government should have more checks and balances, then a Presidential system

will give you that. If you believe that it should have the power to enact laws quickly, then you should go for a Parliamentary system.

What are the Differences between Parliamentary and Presidential Form of Government?

Samir Advertisements: 

Parliamentary Government:1. The executive is not separated from the legislature. The members of council of ministers are the members of legislature.2. The executive is accountable to the legislature. The executive loses power when it loses the confidence of the legislature.3. In the Parliamentary government, one person is head of state whileanother persons is head of government.4. In the Parliamentary systems, the Prime Minister is most powerful.5. In the Parliamentary system, the Prime Minister can appoint only the members of parliament as minister.6. In the Parliamentary system, the tenure of the executive is not fixed. The Council of Ministers is dismissed if it loses the confidence of the legislature before its tenure is over.7. The Parliamentary government is more democratic, because the executive • (council of ministers) is accountable to the legislature (Parliament).8. There is less of separation of powers in the Parliamentary government.9. During war and other emergencies, the Parliamentary government is relatively less effective and successful.

Presidential Government:1. The executive is completely separated I from the legislature. The members of executive are not the members of the legislature.2. The executive is not accountable to the II legislature. The legislature cannot remove the executive from power] through no-confidence motion.3. In the Presidential government, i same person is head of state as well as head of government.

4. In the Presidential system, the President is most powerful.5. In the Presidential system, the President appoint persons from outside the legislature as minister.6. In the Presidential system, executive has a fixed tenure normally,the executive head (President) stays in power for the whole term. It is not easy to remove him from power through impeachment.7. The Presidential government is democratic, because the executive (President) is not accountable to the legislature.ConclusionIn conclusion, we may say that both systems have merits and demerits.While public opinion has better chance to influence the government's policies and decisions in the Parliamentary system, the Presidential system is more successful in providing political stability.The Presidential system in the US and the Parliamentary system in Britain have been more or less equally successful in giving prosperity and security to their respective people. Any system of government will succeed if different organs of government work sincerely and follow the rules of the game. Another critical factor in this regard is the awareness and alertness of people.

Many forms of government are used by countries around the world, and very few governments are completely alike, even if they use the same type of system. Presidential and parliamentary systems of government can vary in specific details from one country to another, but certaingeneral aspects typically are the same in countries that have the same type of system. For example, in some parliamentary systems, the national legislative body is called a parliament, and in others, it might be called by a term such as "national assembly," but they generally serve the same purposes, regardless of their names. Likewise, the specific powers or duties of presidents might vary fromcountry to country, but they generally are all elected by the people and are separate from the legislative body.Presidential SystemsIn a presidential system, the president is the head of government andthe head of state. As the head of government, he or she oversees the operations of the government and fulfills certain duties, such as appointing officials and advisers to help run the government, signingor vetoing laws passed by the legislature and establishing an annual budget. A president's duties as head of state include tasks such as making speeches, representing the country at public events, hosting or visiting diplomats from other countries, and presenting prestigious national awards. Parliamentary SystemsThe roles of head of state and head of government often are held by different people in a parliamentary system. For example, a country might have a prime minister who acts as its head of government and a monarch who acts as its head of state. Some countries that have a parliamentary system also have a president instead of a monarch, who acts as the head of state. A country that has both a prime minister

and a president is sometimes said to have a semi-presidential system of government, although it is more closely related to a parliamentarysystem because of the power held by the legislature and prime minister in such a system.Legislative EfficiencyAnother difference between these systems of government is the effectsthat each system has on things such as efficiency and political acrimony. In a presidential system, because the chief executive and members of the legislature are elected separately, it is possible forthe president to be from one political party and the legislature to be controlled by a different political party. This can cause discord at the highest levels of the government and make it difficult for theexecutive and the legislators to achieve their respective goals. In aparliamentary system, the prime minister is almost always from the political party that controls the legislature, so there is less discord, and it is easier for that party to accomplish its goals. Removing a Chief ExecutiveParliamentary and presidential systems also differ in their abilitiesto remove the chief executive from power. In a parliamentary system, it is much easier for the legislature to remove the prime minister. Even a disagreement in policy or a lack of effective leadership couldbe enough reason for this to happen. A president is more difficult toremove from his or her position, and it usually is possible only in extreme cases, such as when the leader is accused of a serious crime.

The impact of the mass mediaon the quality of democracy within a state remains a much overlooked area of studyhttp://blogs.lse.ac.uk/eurocrisispress/2014/12/10/the-impact-of-the-mass-media-on-the-quality-of-democracy-within-a-state-remains-a-much-overlooked-area-of-study/Eurocrisis in the Press By Lisa MüllerMedia organisations are generally assumed to play an important role in democracies, but how effective are they in performing this function within specific states? Lisa Müller outlines results from an analysis of 47 countries, based on a framework which rates two separate aspects of media performance: the extent to which they perform a ‘watchdog’ role by providing information, and the degree to which they act as a representative forum for the views of citizens. She finds that no country in the analysis scores very highly on both of these

dimensions, but that the variations between states match differences in the quality of their democracy.

Modern societies could not be imagined without mass communication. Television, newspapers, the radio and the internet are the main sources of information for citizens all around the globe. But what does this mean for the functioning of political systems and processes? Few would doubt that mass media in authoritarian regimes – which are typically controlled tightly by the state – serve to maintain the existing power structure. One only has to think of the pervasive state propaganda disseminated by North Korean media to keep the country’s citizens in line. There is also broad agreement that mass media contribute to democratisation processes, as seen for example in Eastern Europe during and after the Soviet Union’s collapse.By contrast, there is a great deal of controversy when it comes to the issue of whether free mass media serve or harm democracy once it has been established. On the one hand, adherents of what is often referred to as the ‘media malaise’ theory claim that because mass media in established democracies mostly operate according to market principles, they disregard their democratic duties. This is alleged to have serious repercussions for democracy, causing apathy, cynicismand ignorance with regard to politics among citizens.

On the other hand, supporters of what might be termed the ‘mobilisation’ perspective (who appear to be in the minority) hold that the expectations imposedon both the media and citizens by media malaise theorists are too high. In what they perceive to be a more realistic assessment, mobilisation theorists conclude that media sources provide enough information for citizens to recognise when their interests are in danger, and that media consumption actually increases civic engagement.Assessing the mass media’s role in democraciesMy book, Comparing Mass Media in Established Democracies, argues thatneither of the positions within this debate are well substantiated bysolid empirical evidence. Most notably, there is a lack of research on democratic media performance and its effects on democratic outcomes across a wide range of countries and by means of a comprehensive theoretical framework and systematic multivariate analysis.A large part of my research therefore deals with the question of how democratic media performance can be assessed in a comparative perspective. To this end, a theoretical model of media performance isdeveloped and found to be empirically valid. It is defined by two normative functions that mass media should fulfil in a democracy. First, mass media should disseminate politically relevant informationto as many citizens as possible and thereby act as a public watchdog (which I term its ‘vertical function’). Second, mass media should provide a public forum that reflects the diversity of the society (what I term its ‘horizontal function’).Based on this two-dimensional concept, I identify indicators to measure media performance on two different levels of analysis: the structural or media system level, and the content or media coverage level. While the structural analysis comprises media market statistics for 47 countries – including most of Europe – from 1990 to2008, the content level focuses on data from a content analysis of 50newspapers from ten countries during the year 2008.How does media performance differ across countries?The comparison of democratic media performance reveals a considerablevariation across the 10 to 47 countries examined, and different patterns can be identified. Although some countries may be ascribed a

higher overall degree of media performance than others, none of them score particularly highly on both the vertical and the horizontal functions. It therefore seems that optimising both media functions atthe same time is only feasible up to a certain point. Countries either perform badly or moderately on both functions, or outstandingly on just one of the functions.In a nutshell, while the younger democracies within the sample generally lag behind (especially the Eastern European, Asian and Latin American cases, but also some Southern European countries), different patterns of media performance can be observed with respect to the more mature democracies. The vertical function – the degree towhich media provide political information – seems to be best guaranteed in Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian countries as well as in Japan. This includes the United States, often considered a worst casein terms of media performance. In contrast, the horizontal function –the capacity for the media to act as a representative public forum – is found to be much stronger in central-western European countries, such as Austria, Germany and Switzerland.These patterns are observed with regard to both the structural and the content level. Further evidence shows that a country’s performance on the structural level has an impact on its performance on the content level, thereby suggesting that the two levels are not independent of each other. The systemic conditions that media outletsoperate in also appear to influence their news coverage.Does media quality actually affect the quality of democracy?Do these differences in media performance according to the vertical and horizontal functions actually have an effect on how well democracy works in the respective countries? As it happens, countrieswith a higher degree of media performance show higher levels of political participation and less corruption. They also tend to have amore lively civil society, and elected representatives seem to reflect the preferences of citizens more adequately. These findings illustrate that media performance is clearly related to at least someaspects of the functioning of a democratic regime. Therefore, given its relevance for democracy, it can be concluded that the discussion over whether media fall short of or fulfil the normative demands imposed on them is highly significant.My findings also question the general and sweeping assumptions that both the ‘media malaise’ and the ‘mobilisation theories’ make about the state of media and democracy. Ultimately, both perspectives couldbenefit from considering comparative empirical evidence that distinguishes between different aspects of media performance and their influence on different elements of democracy.