Chapter 4 Executive

What Is An Executive?

Governments, like any formal organisation (school, university, company), require individuals to take decisions and oversee their implementation. This function is broadly referred to as administration or management.

At the top level, a body is needed to make crucial policy decisions and supervise the overall functioning. Below this, other individuals are responsible for implementing these decisions in the day-to-day operations. This top-level body is often referred to as the executive.

In the context of government, the executive is the organ primarily responsible for implementing laws and policies made by the legislature and also often involved in the process of framing those policies.

The principal functions of the executive are implementation and administration of laws and policies. The titles of those in executive roles vary internationally (e.g., presidents, chancellors, prime ministers).

The executive branch is not limited to the top leadership (President, Prime Minister, Ministers). It also includes the larger administrative machinery, commonly known as the civil service or bureaucracy. The top-level leaders responsible for overall government policy are collectively termed the political executive, while those involved in routine, daily administration are called the permanent executive.

(The comparison to CEOs suggests that executives in various organisations share the function of administration but differ in accountability. In a democracy, the political executive is accountable to the people through the legislature, whereas corporate executives are accountable to shareholders or boards.)

What Are The Different Types Of Executive?

Executive systems vary significantly across countries. Understanding these differences involves looking at how power is distributed and the roles of head of state and head of government.

Based on the relationship between the executive and the legislature, executive systems can be broadly classified:

• Presidential System:

  • The President is both the Head of State and the Head of Government.
  • The office of the President is typically very powerful.
  • There is generally a clear separation of powers between the executive (President) and the legislature.
  • Examples: United States, Brazil, many Latin American nations.

• Parliamentary System:

  • The Head of Government is usually the Prime Minister, who leads a cabinet of ministers.
  • Most parliamentary systems have a separate Head of State who is either a monarch (e.g., Queen in the UK, Emperor in Japan) or a President (e.g., Germany, Italy), whose role is largely ceremonial or nominal.
  • Effective executive power resides with the Prime Minister and the cabinet.
  • The executive (cabinet) is interdependent with and accountable to the legislature (parliament). The government remains in power as long as it has the support of the majority in the parliament.
  • Examples: Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, India, Canada (constitutional monarchy).

• Semi-Presidential System:

  • Features both a President (Head of State) and a Prime Minister (Head of Government).
  • Unlike pure parliamentary systems, the President in a semi-presidential system often possesses significant day-to-day powers.
  • Power may be shared or divided between the President and the Prime Minister.
  • The President and Prime Minister may belong to the same or different political parties.
  • Examples: France, Russia, Sri Lanka.

Semi-Presidential Executive In Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka adopted a semi-presidential system with an Executive Presidency in 1978. Key features:

• The President is directly elected by the people for a six-year term.
• The President is the elected Head of State, Head of Government, and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.
• The President chooses the Prime Minister from the party holding a majority in Parliament.
• While ministers must be Members of Parliament, the President has the power to remove the Prime Minister or other ministers.
• The President cannot be removed from office except through impeachment by Parliament, requiring a resolution passed by at least two-thirds of the total MPs. Parliament can initiate an inquiry into allegations against the President if supported by at least half the total MPs and the Speaker is satisfied, reporting the matter to the Supreme Court for determination.

Compared to India, the President in Sri Lanka holds much greater executive power, including being the Head of Government, and is directly elected by the people. In India, the President is a ceremonial head, indirectly elected, and acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister.

In terms of impeachment, both countries involve Parliament and require a special majority. However, the process and the role of the Supreme Court differ slightly; in Sri Lanka, the Supreme Court investigates the allegations if Parliament initiates the process, while in India, the impeachment process itself is parliamentary.

Parliamentary Executive In India

India opted for a parliamentary system of executive at both the national and state levels, drawing from its experience with this system under the Government of India Acts of 1919 and 1935. This system was favoured because it allows the executive to be effectively controlled by the representatives of the people, ensuring accountability and sensitivity to public expectations.

The alternative, a presidential system, was seen as potentially concentrating too much power in one individual, raising the risk of a personality cult. The framers desired a strong executive but with sufficient checks and balances to prevent authoritarianism. The parliamentary system's mechanisms for legislative oversight provide this accountability.

In the Indian parliamentary system:

• At the national level, there is a President as the formal Head of State, and a Prime Minister and Council of Ministers as the real executive.
• At the state level, there is a Governor as the formal Head of State, and a Chief Minister and Council of Ministers as the real executive.

The Constitution formally vests the executive power of the Union in the President. However, this power is exercised by the President on the advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister (Article 74(1)).

The President is elected for a five-year term through an indirect election by an electoral college consisting of elected Members of Parliament (MPs) and elected Members of State Legislative Assemblies (MLAs). This election uses the principle of proportional representation with a single transferable vote.

The President can only be removed from office through a process of impeachment by Parliament for violation of the Constitution, requiring a special majority in both Houses.

(The thought bubble about "strong Prime Ministers" points out that even in a parliamentary system designed with checks, individuals can become very powerful, highlighting the ongoing need for legislative vigilance and public awareness.)

Power And Position Of President

The President is the formal head of the government and is vested with wide-ranging executive, legislative, judicial, and emergency powers by the Constitution. However, in practice, in India's parliamentary system, these powers are exercised by the President only on the advice of the Council of Ministers, who represent the majority in the Lok Sabha and constitute the real executive. The advice of the Council of Ministers is generally binding on the President (Article 74(1)). This was clarified by constitutional amendments, although the President can ask the Council to reconsider its advice once, but is bound to accept the reconsidered advice.

(Jawaharlal Nehru's quote suggests the President's role is one of authority and dignity as a figurehead, not wielding direct governing power, but serving as a unifying symbol of the nation.)

Discretionary Powers Of The President

While generally bound by the Council of Ministers' advice, the President does possess some discretionary powers:

• Right to be Informed: The President has the right to be informed of all important matters and deliberations of the Council of Ministers. The Prime Minister is constitutionally obliged to provide any information the President requests.
• Reconsideration of Advice: The President can ask the Council of Ministers to reconsider their advice. While not ultimately binding if the Council reiterates the advice, this request carries significant weight and allows the President to influence decision-making by raising concerns or suggesting alternatives.
• Veto Power on Bills: The President can withhold assent to bills passed by Parliament (except Money Bills) or send them back for reconsideration. This is a limited or 'suspensive' veto if Parliament re-passes the bill. However, the Constitution sets no time limit for the President to act on a bill, allowing the use of a 'pocket veto', where the President simply keeps the bill pending indefinitely, effectively preventing it from becoming law.
• Appointment of Prime Minister in case of Hung Parliament: The most significant political discretion arises when no single party or coalition secures a clear majority in the Lok Sabha after an election. In such situations, the President must use their judgment to decide who is most likely to form a stable government and appoint that leader as Prime Minister. This discretion has become more prominent in the era of coalition politics since 1989.

The importance of the President's discretionary role has increased with the rise of coalition governments and less stable political scenarios, providing more scope for presidential assertiveness in forming or dissolving governments.

Despite these discretionary powers, the President's role remains largely that of a formal power holder and symbolic head of state. This role is essential in a parliamentary system to provide continuity and national representation, particularly when the government (Council of Ministers) can change depending on legislative support. The President also performs the crucial function of appointing a Prime Minister, especially in complex coalition scenarios.

(The question "has a woman ever become the President?" prompts reflection on representation in high offices; Yes, India has had a woman President.)

The Vice President Of India

The Vice President is elected for a five-year term. The election process is similar to the President's, but the electoral college includes only elected members of both Houses of Parliament, not state legislators.

The Vice President can be removed by a resolution passed by a majority in the Rajya Sabha and agreed upon by the Lok Sabha.

The Vice President serves as the ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha (Council of States).

The Vice President takes over the office of the President in case of a vacancy due to death, resignation, impeachment, or other reasons. They act as President only until a new President is elected (within six months).

Prime Minister And Council Of Ministers

The Prime Minister (PM) is the central figure in the Indian government. Since the President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the PM, the Prime Minister becomes the most powerful and important functionary.

In the parliamentary system, the PM must have the support of the majority in the Lok Sabha. This majority support is the primary source of the PM's power. Loss of this support necessitates resignation.

Traditionally, the leader of the single majority party became the PM. Since 1989, coalition governments have been common, requiring the leader acceptable to most coalition partners to assume the role of PM.

Formally, the President appoints the leader with majority support as PM. The PM then selects the members of the Council of Ministers, allocates their ranks (Cabinet Minister, Minister of State, Deputy Minister), and assigns portfolios (ministries).

The PM and all ministers must be members of Parliament. If someone is appointed PM or a minister without being an MP, they must be elected to Parliament within six months.

(The cartoon suggesting ministers want roles only for perks and status reflects public cynicism about political motivations, but also highlights the competition for ministerial positions, presumably due to the associated power and influence.)

Size Of The Council Of Ministers

Originally, the Constitution did not specify a limit on the size of the Council of Ministers, leading to potentially very large cabinets and the use of ministerial positions to secure political support (especially in coalition or hung Parliament situations).

To address this, the 91st Amendment Act, 2003, mandated that the size of the Council of Ministers at both the Centre and in States cannot exceed 15 percent of the total number of members of the Lok Sabha (or the respective State Assembly). This aims to control the size of the executive and prevent defections or alliances based solely on the promise of ministerial office.

A fundamental principle of the parliamentary executive is the collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers to the Lok Sabha. This means:

• The entire ministry is obliged to resign if it loses the confidence of the Lok Sabha.
• The ministry acts as a collective unit, governing on behalf of Parliament.
• All ministers are bound by cabinet decisions. If a minister disagrees with a policy, they must either accept it or resign from the Council of Ministers. A vote of no confidence against one minister is a vote against the entire Council.

The Prime Minister holds a pre-eminent position. The Council of Ministers cannot exist without the PM; its dissolution occurs upon the PM's death or resignation, while a single minister's departure only creates a vacancy. The PM serves as the vital link between the Council of Ministers, the President, and Parliament.

The PM's significant influence stems from control over the Council of Ministers, leadership of the Lok Sabha majority, command over the administrative machinery, access to media, public projection, and representation at international forums. The PM is involved in all major government decisions and policy formulation.

(The question about becoming powerful *before* or *after* becoming PM highlights the complex interplay of personal charisma, political strategy, and the power inherent in the office itself.)

However, the PM's actual power is influenced by political circumstances. The PM is strongest when leading a single-party majority government. In the era of coalition governments since 1989, the PM's authority has been somewhat constrained:

• Increased presidential discretion in appointing the PM in hung Parliament situations.
• Greater need for consultation and negotiation with coalition partners, potentially diluting prime ministerial authority.
• Restrictions on the PM's freedom to choose ministers and assign portfolios, often based on coalition demands.
• Policy and programme decisions require negotiation and compromise among allies, making the PM more of a negotiator than an absolute leader.

At the State level, a similar parliamentary system operates, with a Chief Minister and Council of Ministers. The key difference is the presence of a Governor, appointed by the President (on the Centre's advice), who has more discretionary powers compared to the President, though the Chief Minister remains the leader of the majority and the real executive.

(The cartoon of a Chief Minister unhappy after winning a confidence motion likely suggests the challenges of leading a coalition or minority government, where winning a vote might involve difficult compromises, managing restive allies, or facing inherent instability, making the victory less satisfying.)

Permanent Executive: Bureaucracy

While the political executive (PM and Ministers) makes policy decisions, the task of implementing these decisions falls to the permanent executive, which is the bureaucracy or administrative machinery. This is also known as the civil service, distinguishing it from the military.

The bureaucracy consists of trained and skilled officers who are permanent government employees. Their role is to assist ministers in policy formulation and implementation. In a democracy, ministers are in charge of the administration, and the bureaucracy operates under their control and supervision, bound by the policies adopted by the legislature.

Key characteristics of the Indian bureaucracy:

• Professional: It is structured as a professional administrative machinery.
• Politically Accountable: It functions under the political control of the elected government.
• Politically Neutral: Bureaucrats are expected to be politically neutral and implement policies faithfully, regardless of which party is in power. This is essential for continuity in administration when governments change.

The Indian bureaucracy is a complex system comprising All-India Services (like IAS, IPS), State Services, local government employees, and public sector staff. The Constitution framers recognised the need for a non-partisan, professional bureaucracy selected based on merit.

The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) is mandated to recruit civil servants for the central government, and State Public Service Commissions do the same for state governments. Members of these commissions have fixed terms and can only be removed after a rigorous inquiry by a Supreme Court judge, ensuring their impartiality.

To ensure representation from all sections, including weaker sections, the Constitution provides for reservation in government jobs for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and subsequently for Other Backward Classes and Economically Weaker Sections. This aims to make the bureaucracy more representative and ensure social inequalities do not hinder recruitment based on merit.

Officers from All-India Services (IAS, IPS) are particularly important. Appointed by the central government, they are allocated to states but can be deputed to the centre. Disciplinary action against them can only be taken by the central government, giving the central government significant control over key state-level administrative officers. State administration also includes officers recruited by State Public Service Commissions.

While intended as an instrument for public service and policy implementation, the bureaucracy can sometimes be perceived as powerful and inaccessible, leading to public fear and a sense of insensitivity to citizen demands. Effective democratic control by elected governments is seen as essential to address these issues.

However, excessive political interference can compromise the bureaucracy's independence and professionalism, turning it into a tool for politicians. While the Constitution ensures independent recruitment, concerns remain about protecting civil servants from political pressure and ensuring their accountability to citizens. Measures like the Right to Information Act are seen as steps towards making the bureaucracy more responsive and accountable to the public.

(The question "officers also behave as if they were the masters!" highlights the common perception of bureaucratic power leading to a lack of responsiveness to the public it is meant to serve.)

Conclusion

The executive is a powerful branch of modern government, often wielding more influence than other organs. This necessitates robust democratic control over its functioning. The framers of the Indian Constitution wisely chose a parliamentary executive, designed to be under regular supervision and control of the legislature.

Through mechanisms like periodic elections, constitutional limits on executive powers, and dynamic democratic politics (including legislative oversight and public vigilance), the Indian system aims to prevent the executive from becoming unresponsive or unaccountable, ensuring its operation within a democratic framework.

Exercises

As per instructions, the content of the exercises is not included, only the section heading structure is provided.