Chapter 4 Executive

The three organs of government are the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. These organs collectively perform governmental functions, including maintaining law and order and looking after public welfare. Constitutions ensure coordination and balance among these organs. In a parliamentary system, the executive and legislature are interdependent, with the legislature controlling the executive, which in turn influences the legislature.

This chapter focuses on the executive branch of government, its composition, structure, and functions, as well as how these have evolved due to political practice. After studying this chapter, you will understand the distinction between parliamentary and presidential executives, the constitutional role of the Indian President, the composition and functioning of the Council of Ministers and the importance of the Prime Minister, and the importance and functioning of the administrative machinery (bureaucracy).

What Is An Executive?

In any organization, certain individuals or bodies are responsible for making decisions and implementing them. This activity is called administration or management. At the top level, there is usually a body that makes policy decisions and supervises overall functioning. Below this, other officeholders implement those decisions in day-to-day operations. The term executive refers to the body of persons responsible for the implementation and administration of rules and regulations in practice.

In the context of government, one body (legislature) may make policy decisions and laws, while another organ, the executive, is primarily responsible for implementing and administering those laws and policies. The principal function of the executive branch is the implementation of laws and policies adopted by the legislature. The executive is also often involved in the framing of policy proposals. The titles for executive heads vary across countries (President, Chancellor, etc.).

The executive branch encompasses more than just the head of government and ministers. It includes the entire administrative machinery, or civil servants. Those elected by the people and appointed as heads of government or ministers, responsible for overall policy, constitute the political executive. Those permanent, trained, and skilled officers responsible for day-to-day administration are called the permanent executive (bureaucracy).

The statement about the executive in a democracy being accountable to people is a key principle. While CEOs of companies are accountable to shareholders or boards, the political executive in a democracy is accountable to the elected legislature, which in turn is accountable to the people.

What Are The Different Types Of Executive?

Different countries have different types of executives, varying in structure, powers, and functions. These variations lead to different political systems. The powers and functions of the head of state (e.g., President, Queen, Emperor) and head of government (e.g., President, Prime Minister, Chancellor) differ significantly between systems.

Major types of executives:

• Presidential System: The President is both the Head of State and the Head of Government. The office of the President is typically very powerful in theory and practice. Examples: USA, Brazil, most Latin American nations.
• Parliamentary System: The Prime Minister is the Head of Government, exercising effective executive power. There is often a President or Monarch who is the nominal or ceremonial Head of State with limited real executive power. Examples: Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, Portugal.
• Semi-Presidential System: This system features both a President and a Prime Minister. Unlike in a parliamentary system, the President in a semi-presidential system may have significant day-to-day powers. The President might appoint the Prime Minister and ministers, but the government is often responsible to the parliament. In this system, the President and Prime Minister can belong to the same party or different parties. Examples: France, Russia, Sri Lanka.

Listing heads of state/government attending international summits (like SAARC or G-7) reveals the diverse types of executives leading different countries.

Box on Semi-Presidential Executive in Sri Lanka: Sri Lanka's constitution (amended 1978) introduced an Executive Presidency directly elected by the people for a six-year term. The President is Head of State, Head of Government, and Commander-in-Chief. The President appoints and can remove the Prime Minister and ministers (who must be MPs). The President can be removed only by a resolution of Parliament with a special majority (at least 2/3rds) or upon a Supreme Court inquiry triggered by Parliament (at least half membership). This system differs from India's parliamentary system where the President is largely ceremonial and Prime Minister is the effective head, and impeachment procedures differ.

Parliamentary Executive In India

India adopted the parliamentary system of executive for both the national and state governments. This choice was influenced by India's prior experience with this system under the colonial Acts of 1919 and 1935, which demonstrated its effectiveness in ensuring the executive's accountability to people's representatives. The Constitution makers wanted a government sensitive to public expectations and accountable to the legislature. The alternative, the presidential system, was viewed as potentially leading to a personality cult due to the President's concentrated power. The parliamentary system, with its mechanisms for legislative control over the executive, was deemed more suitable for ensuring accountability.

In the Indian parliamentary system:

• The President is the formal Head of the state, representing the nation symbolically.
• The Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers, who collectively hold the support of the majority in the Lok Sabha (House of the People), are the real executive and run the government.

At the national level, executive power is formally vested in the President, who exercises it based on the advice of the Council of Ministers led by the Prime Minister. The President is elected indirectly for a five-year term by an electoral college consisting of elected Members of Parliament (MPs) and elected Members of State Legislative Assemblies (MLAs), following the principle of proportional representation with a single transferable vote. The President can be removed from office before the term expires only through impeachment by Parliament for violating the Constitution, requiring a special majority in both Houses.

Power And Position Of President

Article 74(1) states that there shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister as head to "aid and advise the President who shall... act in accordance with such advice." This indicates that the Council of Ministers' advice is generally binding on the President. Amendments later clarified that the President can ask the Council to reconsider advice but must accept the reconsidered advice.

In theory, the President holds extensive executive, legislative, judicial, and emergency powers. However, in practice, within a parliamentary system, these powers are exercised by the President primarily on the advice of the Council of Ministers, who are accountable to the Lok Sabha. Thus, the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers are the real executive, and the President largely acts as a formal head, following their advice in most cases. While the President is a formal figurehead, the position is one of authority and dignity, representing the entire country.

The statement "Am I just a figurehead or am I asking real questions?" prompts reflection on the perceived limitations of the President's powers compared to the active role of the Prime Minister, but also the President's ability to raise important questions and influence deliberation.

Discretionary Powers Of The President

Despite generally being bound by the Council of Ministers' advice, the President of India does possess some discretionary powers. These are situations where the President can exercise judgment independently:

1. Sending back advice for reconsideration: The President can send back advice given by the Council of Ministers and ask them to reconsider a decision if the President believes it has flaws, legal issues, or is not in the country's best interests. While the Council can reiterate the advice (which the President must then accept), this request carries significant weight and is a way for the President to exercise discretion and influence.
2. Veto power on Bills: The President has the power to withhold assent to Bills passed by Parliament (except Money Bills). Every Bill requires the President's assent to become law. The President can send a Bill back to Parliament for reconsideration. If Parliament passes the same Bill again, the President must give assent. However, the Constitution does not specify a time limit for the President to return a Bill. This allows the President to keep a Bill pending indefinitely, effectively using a 'pocket veto'. This provides an informal power to use the veto effectively (e.g., President Gyani Zail Singh's inaction on the Indian Post Office (Amendment) Bill in 1986, effectively killing it).
3. Appointing the Prime Minister in a hung Parliament: In a parliamentary system, the President formally appoints the Prime Minister. Normally, this is the leader of the party with a clear majority in the Lok Sabha, leaving no room for discretion. However, in situations where no single party or pre-poll coalition secures a clear majority after an election (a hung Parliament), the President has to use personal discretion to decide which leader is most likely to be able to form and maintain a stable government, often by judging which leader has the support of a majority of MPs (potentially through forming a post-poll coalition). Since 1989, the rise of coalition politics and the frequent absence of clear majorities have increased the frequency and importance of the President's discretionary role in appointing the Prime Minister and granting requests for Lok Sabha dissolution when a PM loses confidence.

Presidential assertiveness is more likely when governments are unstable and coalitions are in power. For the most part, the President remains a formal and ceremonial head, symbolizing the entire country. This role is crucial in a parliamentary system where the government can be unstable; the President provides continuity and the authority to initiate the process of forming a new government.

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 does not include members of State legislatures. The Vice President can be removed by a resolution in the Rajya Sabha passed by a majority and agreed to by the Lok Sabha.

The Vice President serves as the ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha (presiding officer). The Vice President takes over the office of the President if a vacancy occurs due to death, resignation, impeachment, or other reasons. The Vice President acts as President only until a new President is elected, which must be done within six months of the vacancy.

The question about the President's options when the PM wants to impose President's rule in a state and the President disagrees highlights the interplay between the PM's advice and the President's discretionary role and constitutional limitations. The President cannot simply refuse to sign or dismiss the PM but can ask for reconsideration and engage in persuasion. Ultimately, the President is generally bound by the reconsidered advice, but must ensure the constitutional procedure is followed.

Prime Minister And Council Of Ministers

In India's parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is the most important and powerful functionary of the government. This is because the President, the formal head, acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers, which is headed by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is the real executive.

A political cartoon by Shankar, humorously illustrating the Prime Minister physically leading the Council of Ministers, symbolizing the PM's central and directing role in the government.

The Prime Minister's power stems from having the support of the majority in the Lok Sabha. The loss of this majority support leads to the loss of office. For many years after independence, the Congress party held a majority, and its leader became PM. Since 1989, coalition governments have been common, and the leader acceptable to most coalition partners becomes the Prime Minister.

The President formally appoints the leader with majority support as PM. The PM then selects the ministers for the Council of Ministers, allocating ranks (Cabinet Minister, Minister of State, Deputy Minister) and portfolios. Ministers, including the PM, must be MPs. If not already an MP, they must get elected within six months.

The position "I am just a figurehead or am I asking real questions? Did the textbook writers give me power to ask questions I wish to ask or am I asking questions they have in their mind?" reflects the ongoing debate about the extent of the PM's power. While the PM is powerful due to majority support and leadership role, they must also consider the expectations of party/coalition members and the public. The statement "is it that a person becomes Prime Minister because he/she is powerful or is it that you become powerful once you have become the Prime Minister?" captures the complex relationship between individual influence and the power inherent in the office of the PM, which depends on the support of the majority and control over the government machinery.

The question about why people want to be ministers and the accompanying cartoon suggest that positions are sometimes sought for perks, status, and power rather than solely for public service or expertise. However, competition for important portfolios indicates the desire for influence over specific policy areas.

A political cartoon by R.K. Laxman, humorously depicting competition or vying for ministerial positions, suggesting motivations beyond public service such as perks and status.

Size Of The Council Of Ministers

Until the 91st Amendment Act in 2003, there were no constitutional limits on the size of the Council of Ministers. This led to large ministries and the use of ministerial positions to secure political support, especially in coalition governments. The 91st Amendment fixed the size of the Council of Ministers at the national level (and for states) to not exceed 15% of the total number of members in the House of the People (Lok Sabha or State Assembly). This aimed to limit the size of the executive and curb the practice of using ministerial berths to manage political support.

The Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha. This means the entire Ministry must resign if it loses the confidence of the Lok Sabha. This principle highlights the cabinet's solidarity and accountability to Parliament. If a minister disagrees with a cabinet decision, they must accept it or resign. This collective responsibility ensures the Ministry acts as a united executive body on behalf of Parliament.

The Prime Minister holds a pre-eminent position. The Council of Ministers is formed only after the PM is sworn in, and the death or resignation of the PM dissolves the Council. The PM is the link between the Council, the President, and Parliament, involved in crucial decisions and setting government policies. The PM's power comes from controlling the Council, leading the Lok Sabha majority, commanding the bureaucracy, media access, and personal popularity/leadership projection.

The actual power of the PM and Council depends on political conditions. A single-party majority government gives the PM greater authority. Coalition governments, more common since 1989, have increased the President's discretionary role in PM selection and eroded prime ministerial authority, requiring more consultation and compromise among coalition partners in choosing ministers, allocating portfolios, and deciding policies. The PM acts more as a negotiator in such circumstances. At the State level, a similar parliamentary executive exists, with a Governor (appointed by the President) and Chief Minister/Council of Ministers, though Governors may have more discretionary powers than the President.

The cartoon showing a Chief Minister unhappy despite winning a confidence motion likely suggests the challenges of leading a coalition government or facing internal party dissent, where winning a vote of confidence may not resolve underlying political instability or dissatisfaction.

A political cartoon by R.K. Laxman, showing a Chief Minister looking unhappy or stressed despite winning a confidence motion, potentially illustrating the difficulties of coalition governance or managing political support.

The check your progress question asking the PM's criteria for selecting ministers suggests considering expertise, party affiliation, loyalty, political weight, and support base. In reality, PMs often balance various factors to form a stable and effective Council reflective of political realities and needs.

Permanent Executive: Bureaucracy

The permanent executive comprises the bureaucracy or administrative machinery, responsible for implementing the decisions and policies made by the political executive (Prime Minister and ministers). This machinery, often referred to as civil service (to distinguish from military service), consists of trained and skilled officers who are permanent government employees.

In a democracy, elected representatives and ministers hold political control over the administration. The administration is expected to function under their supervision and in accordance with policies set by the legislature. Ministers are politically accountable for the actions of the administration under their charge. The bureaucracy is expected to be politically neutral, implementing policies faithfully regardless of which political party is in power. This neutrality is important for continuity and efficient administration, as new governments may change policies.

The Indian bureaucracy is a complex system including All-India Services, State services, local government employees, and staff in public sector undertakings. The Constitution makers recognized the importance of a professional and non-partisan bureaucracy, ensuring impartial selection based on merit. The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) is responsible for recruiting civil servants for the central government, and State Public Service Commissions for states. Members of these commissions have fixed terms and security of tenure.

To ensure representation from all sections, including weaker sections, the Constitution provides for reservation of jobs for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and later, other backward classes and women. These provisions aim to make the bureaucracy more representative and counter social inequalities in recruitment.

Officers selected by UPSC for the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and Indian Police Service (IPS) form the higher bureaucracy backbone in states. They are allotted to states but appointed by the central government and can return to central service. Importantly, only the central government can take disciplinary action against IAS/IPS officers. This mechanism strengthens central government control over state administration. State Public Service Commissions appoint other officers for state administration.

While intended to implement welfare policies, bureaucracy can be powerful, sometimes perceived as insensitive or acting like masters. Ensuring democratic control over bureaucracy by elected government is seen as vital to address these issues. However, excessive political interference can compromise bureaucracy's neutrality. Despite independent recruitment machinery, concerns exist about political interference and lack of accountability of bureaucracy to citizens. Measures like the Right to Information Act are seen as ways to enhance bureaucracy's responsiveness and accountability.

The statement "I know that the officers are there to serve the people. But people are always afraid of these officers. And officers also behave as if they were the masters!" captures a common public perception of the bureaucracy – that they are powerful, sometimes intimidating, and may act authoritatively rather than as public servants.

Conclusion

The executive is a powerful governmental institution today, requiring democratic control. The Constitution makers chose a parliamentary executive model for India to ensure it is under regular supervision by the legislature. Periodic elections, constitutional limits on power, and democratic politics work together to ensure the executive remains accountable and responsive to the people. The effectiveness of this system relies on maintaining a balance between the power of the executive and the oversight mechanisms provided by the Constitution.

Exercises

Content for Exercises is excluded as per your instructions.