Political Institutions Legislature, Executive, Judiciary
Political Institutions Legislature, Executive, Judiciary: As we’ve seen, governing entails making choices that influence the lives of a vast number of people. Some of these choices need the enactment of new laws or amendments to existing laws in order for the persons and/or groups affected to be informed of the government’s objectives and requirements.
This legal ability to create the law (i.e. to legislate) is placed in a legislative body (the legislature) that is chosen entirely or partially by the people under a democratic system of government. As previously stated, a major aspect of the democratic method to administration is the act of electing a representative decision-making body by popular election.
Putting aside for a minute the relative authority of the legislative and executive branches of government, there are a number of similar characteristics that can be found in most, if not all, democratic governments’ legislatures and legislative functions. The following are some of them:
A bicameral legislature is one that has two chambers: an upper and lower house, each with its own set of authorities and responsibilities in the legislative process.
In most nations, each chamber is composed of legislators elected in a separate election process, and as a result, depending on the electoral results, each house may be controlled by the same party, multiple parties, or no one party. The approval of both houses is usually necessary for a legislative proposal to be adopted.
Political Institutions Legislature, Executive, Judiciary
This is one of the numerous checks and balances that democratic governments are known for.
A multi-stage legislative process that includes the preparation of a legislative proposal, its discussion and consideration, any required amendments, more debate and consideration, and finally adoption or rejection by one or both legislative chambers. The broad concepts of a proposed piece of legislation are usually debated by all members of each house, while specific discussion is usually done in smaller groups or committees.
An executive-led process is one in which the executive branch of government makes the majority of key legislative proposals. In a presidential form of government (such as the United States), the top executive (the President) is generally elected independently from the legislature (i.e., there is a’separation of powers’). Members of the executive may also be members of the legislative body under a parliamentary system (e.g., the UK), and therefore have power over the legislative process.
Arrangements that allow ordinary members of the legislative assembly to propose new laws or amendments to existing laws are known as opportunities for legislative proposals by ordinary representatives. In actuality, such chances are often limited, and their effectiveness is predicated in large part on the political executive’s favourable reaction.
The ability to criticise and censure the government and, in some cases, remove it from office (e.g., through impeachment) is a critical function of a democratic government because it forces decision-makers to defend their proposals, explain the logic of their actions, and account for any mistakes they may have made.
In this scenario, opposition parties play an essential role in the legislative body, and via media coverage, they may criticise the administration and provide alternate viewpoints to the general public. In democratic regimes, specialist and standing committees for reviewing legislation and the executive branch’s day-to-day operations are also common.
Control of the purse strings, or the ability to provide or refuse the government the funds it needs to carry out its policies and legislative agenda. Given that no government can function without finances, this is a powerful power in principle. In actuality, the legislature’s ability to withhold financing to a democratically elected administration may be more apparent than real, and compromise between the executive and legislative arms of government is more often than not.
Legislating is a difficult and time-consuming process, as seen by the remarks above, with various possibilities for people and organisations both within and outside the legislative body (e.g. pressure groups) to delay and disrupt the passage of legislation. While no government can ensure that all of its legislative goals will be met, there is a cultural expectation in a democracy that promises made before to an election would be implemented as soon as feasible by the democratically elected administration. When faced with stubbornness within the legislative assembly or antagonism from outside sectoral interests, such an expectation generally provides the incumbent administration with a compelling basis for legislative support
Executive
Governing entails not just making choices, but also ensuring that these decisions are implemented in order to fulfil the government’s goals. The executive branch of government is in charge of putting government decisions into action.
The word ‘executive’ in contemporary governments refers to the relatively limited number of people selected to make policy and supervise its execution; some may hold political office, while others will be career administrators and advisors, though some of the latter may also be political appointees. They are all part of a complicated political and administrative system meant to carry out government’s basic functions while also ensuring that individuals in charge of policymaking and execution are held accountable.
The policy-making portion of the executive role is usually delegated to a limited political executive elected (wholly or partially) by public vote. In a presidential form of government, the top executive, or President, is generally elected for a certain term and serves as both the nominal and political head of state. He or she then picks people to lead the many government departments, ministries, and bureaucracies that are in charge of creating and executing government policies. Although there are occasional exceptions, neither the President nor the heads of departments generally sit in the legislative assembly (e.g. the Vice-President in the United States).
In a parliamentary system, however, the duties of head of state and head of government are divided, with the former being mostly ceremonial and carried out by either a president (e.g., Germany) or a monarch (e.g., India) (e.g. UK, Japan). While the head of state appoints the head of government (for example, the Prime Minister), the head of government is always an elected politician, invariably the leader of the winning party in a general election or at least seen as capable of forming a government, possibly in coalition with other parties.
Once in office, the head of government appoints other people to lead various government departments/ministries and to serve on a collective decision-making body (e.g., a Cabinet) that meets to approve policy recommendations put up by a system of executive committees and subcommittees (e.g. Cabinet Committees). These persons, together with the state’s chief executive, are not only members of the executive branch of government, but also members of the legislative branch, and are both ‘individually’ and ‘collectively’ accountable to the legislature for the government’s work.
Non-elected government officials (also known as civil servants or bureaucrats) are in charge of the day-to-day administration of government policies. They operate for the most part in complicated, bureaucratic organisations inside the state bureaucracy. Apart from executing public policy, government employees assist ministers in advising them on various policy alternatives as well as the political and administrative implications of various courses of action. Needless to say, this gives them a potentially essential role in creating government policy, a position that has been significantly strengthened over time by the practise of providing officials wide leeway in determining the specifics of certain policies and/or how they should be implemented.
Whereas politicians in the executive branch of government tend to be transitory figures who come and go at the whim of the president or the electorate, most, if not all, officials are permanent, professional appointees who may serve a variety of governments of various political hues and preferences over the course of a long career in public administration. When advising their political masters and monitoring the execution of government policy, officials are typically expected to behave in a non-partisan (i.e. neutral) manner, regardless of which government is in power. In a nutshell, they are loyal to the existing regime.
a concept that ensures a seamless transfer of administration and ensures that the turbulence generated by a general election does not hinder the state’s activities from continuing as normal.
Judiciary
Governing entails not just drafting and enforcing laws, but also ensuring that they are implemented and enforced; the latter is basically the responsibility of the judiciary and court system, which is the third branch of government. Legal structures and procedures, like political institutions, are nation unique to some extent and vary depending on a variety of factors such as history, culture, and politics. While some states have a somewhat united legal system, those organised on a federal level often have a system of parallel courts adjudicating on federal and state/provincial law, with the Supreme Court arbitrating in the case of a conflict.
Some judges are directly or indirectly chosen by the public in some nations, while others are appointed by the government and/or co-opted by fellow judges in others. Business students should familiarise themselves with the legal framework in their own nation. We’ll take a quick look at the judicial role and how it relates to the notion of democracy in this part.
In totalitarian systems of government, the judiciary is essentially a servant of the ruling élite (e.g., the ‘party’), whereas in a democracy, it is an accepted principle that the judicial function should be separated from the other two branches of government to protect citizens from an overpowering state. The idea of an impartial and independent judiciary, free to dispute and evaluate the administration’s choices, is viewed as one of the characteristics of a democratic form of government; it is another embodiment of the philosophy of separation of powers.
In practise, however, judicial independence and role in the democratic political process are frequently debated, particularly in countries where senior judicial appointments appear to be in the hands of politicians (e.g., Supreme Court judges in the United States are nominated by the President with Senate consent) or where individuals with judicial powers also have executive and/or legislative powers (e.g. the Lord Chancellor and Home Secretary in Britain).
There are also debates about how much authority the courts should have to assess the legality of a democratically elected government’s choices. For example, in the United States, the Supreme Court has long had the authority to declare a legislation unlawful if it contradicts its reading of the American constitution. In contrast, in the United Kingdom, Parliament’s legal sovereignty and the lack of a codified written constitution force the court to interpret the objectives of the bill’s authors, and any legal judgement that the government does not like may be overturned by new legislation. However, it is worth noting that the British court has shown a growing readiness to scrutinise administrative judgments, especially those made by ministers, in recent years.
Other factors raise questions about how complete a separation between the several institutions of government is in contemporary democratic governments (e.g., the growing use of administrative courts/tribunals) and if it is necessary to create a strict distinction between rule formulation and rule adjudication. Certainly, several of the Supreme Court’s previous rulings (for example, in the field of civil rights) illustrate that the courts may have a significant impact on policy choices and imply that the judiciary is subject to influences from their own views or social forces.
In short, it seems reasonable to conclude that, under current legal arrangements, legal adjudication is not divorced from politics; indeed, we may wish to perpetuate the myth of an entirely separate and independent judiciary because it is a necessary component of the stability of many existing political systems.