The Balance of Power between the Executive and Legislature - Essay Example

The Balance of Power between the Executive and Legislature In democratic governments, the functions of government are carried out by the three arms of government. They are the Legislature (parliament / assembly), executive and the judiciary, (Victor, 2010). These three arms have their different functions in the government. The legislature is responsible for making new laws and amending present laws. The executive’s work is to implement these laws while that of the judiciary arm is to uphold the law. The three arms of government should work together but be independent of each other. This means that no single arm of government should control the other two arms. However, this is not the case as seen in the study of the political system of Russia, United States of America and France, (Fitjar, 2010) Russia Russia emerged after the breakup of the United Social Soviet republic. It is made up of eighty nine republics and other jurisdictions. Russia’s political system is different from that of the United States of America and France. This is because the constitution, which was adopted in 1993 provided that Russia be governed by the three arms of government. However, the constitution did not give equal powers to all the arms of government. For example, the president is both the commander in chief of the armed forces and the chair to the Security Council. Vladimir Putin is said to have used this power to strengthen his office. The executive arm of the Russian government is comprises the prime minister, other cabinet ministers and the attorney general, (White, 2005). The prime minister is appointed by the president and is the chair of the constitutional court which is the highest court in Russia. He is also the head of the Central Bank of Russia. Russia’s legislature is made up of two houses. The first house is the Federation council which is made up of 180 members who serve four years terms. The other house is the state Duma which is comprised of 450 members who also serve terms of four years. Both houses have different responsibilities. The State Duma has more powers than the Federal council which is viewed as a reviewing and consultation body. One important role of the legislature is to check and control the executive by making sure that transparency is observed in the operations of the government. However, in Russia the executive has dominated over the executive resulting in various consequences. The executive in Russia has dominated over the legislature in many ways. The president of Russia is allowed to appoint top government officials without consultation with the legislature. However, this is with the exception with the appointment of the prime minister where the lower house of the legislature should confirm the nominee for the position of prime minister. Despite this being the case, the president has the power to dissolve the lower house if they do not confirm a nominee to be the prime minister three times consecutively. This has resulted in the lower house accepting nominees for prime ministers since it faces the risk of dissolution if the nominees are not passed. It is said that it is through this that presidents like Vladimir Putin have taken advantage of this political system to empire their offices so that the government can be dominated by them. Another way that the executive in Russia destabilizes the balance of the executive and the legislature is by making sure they can control the federal council. The president does this by changing the process of ex official membership into presidential appointment. For example, in the year 2000 President Vladimir Putin replaced ex official members with those he appointed. This made sure he could influence decisions by the Federal Council in accordance with policies of the executive. Even though, the State Duma can pass a vote of no confidence for the government, the president has the powers to ignore the vote and even dissolve the house if they take another vote within the period of three months. United States of America The United States of America is a federal republic which also has the three branches of government. However, the political system in the (USA) United States of America has a lot of differences with other democracies like Russia and France, (Singh, 2003). One difference is the fact that the legislature has greater powers than that in other countries. Another difference is that the judiciary through the Supreme Court has a lot of powers. The final difference is that the functions of the legislature and the executive are independent. This can be attributed to the presence of only two national parties in the United States of America which have almost equal influence and power. These differences have resulted in a balance between the executive and the legislature. In fact, it is said that none of the arms of government is dominant to the others. The legislature checks on the actions of the cabinet making sure there is transparency in the cabinet. The legislature has house committees for almost all departments (Ministries). These committees are involved in the running of the government and usually keep the executive branch of the government on its toes ensuring transparency and accountability. For example, if there have been any corruption incident in a department, the legislature investigates the issue through the respective committee and gives results and recommendations to the house which acts depending on the results and recommendations of the committee. This has resulted in low cases of corruption in the executive. The balance of the executive and the legislature is also observed in the United States of America (USA) when it comes to the appointment of top government officials, (Peel, 2002). The president has powers to appoint government officials such as heads of government agencies such as police and intelligence. However, this power is limited in that the president must present the names of the persons he or she wishes to appoint to the legislature for approval. If the nominee’s character or record is in question then, the legislature has powers to reject the appointment. The president is the commander in chief of the armed forces. However, he or she cannot order the armed forces to go into war or respond to any attack on the United States of America. He or she requires the approval the approval of the senate. This independence of the legislature from the executive has several advantages to the American people. It is through parliament that citizens ensure that the right people are appointed in government agencies resulting in good service delivery. Through the legislature, citizens are represented, and their wishes conveyed to the executive. Corruption, racism and nepotism are considered to be on the low among the cabinet as a result of the scrutiny of the executive by the legislature. This absence of corruption and nepotism runs down through the respective government agencies from the executive resulting in good service delivery which is ensured by the executive since they are aware of the legislature’s scrutiny. This kind of system also ensures that the tax payers’ money is used well and the right cause. Since the legislature ensures accountability and transparency of the executive, the taxpayers are sure that the country's income is used for the right reasons and none is lost. Since the legislature approves or disapproves the national budget, they make sure that they approve a budget with government expenditure that is necessary; hence they make sure no revenue is used in appropriately. This results in the government undertaking projects that benefit the citizens. France The republic of France practices a political system known as a “semi-presidential system.” This is where the state is headed by the president and the government is headed by the prime minister. The political system of France is also made up of the three arms of government, (Drake, 2011). The political system of France has qualities from that of the United States of America and Russia. However, though it has similarities it is also unique. The French legislature is made up of the senate and National assembly. The legislature is somehow dependent to the executive, (Atkin, 2005). This is because of the uniqueness of the French political system. The president must appoint a prime minister from the party with majority members in parliament. If the prime minister comes from the president’s party, then the executive naturally becomes dominant over parliament. This is because the president also has the power to appoint ministers and top government officials. So, if the president, prime minister, executive and the majority of parliament comes from one party then it is obvious that the executive will have control over parliament. However, when the prime minister comes from the opposition, then the executive does not necessarily have control over the legislature. The political system of France allows the executive to have control over parliament. Constitutionally, actions of the executive are controlled through the constitutional council who include members of the national assembly. However, the executive through the president controls this council since a number of its members are appointed by the president. The legislature is considered in effective when it comes to checking of the executive. This is because, parliament checks on the executive by asking questions on the floor of parliament about the executive’s functions. For a country to be fully democratic, the legislature (parliament) should be independent of the executive arm of government, (Hearn, 2006). This can be proved by comparing the results of governance in the United States of America, Russia and France. Among these countries, the United States experiences much less corruption and abuse of office cases than in France and in Russia. In the United States of America, the executive do not use government resources for their own gain and those close to them. For example, in Russia top government officials and ministers have been involved in corruption and abuse of office cases over the years. One will find that in the United States of America, there is political tolerance as a result of the independence of the legislature. However, in France and Russia there has been an absence of political tolerance over the years as a result of the dominance of the executive over the legislature. For example, over the years Russia has been known for its crack down on political activists. Conclusion However, there have been changes in the political structure of many countries such as France and Russia. Legislature has started to become independent from the executive resulting in governments performing very well. This has been as a result of combined efforts by political activists and international pressure, (Colomer, 2008). References Atkin, N., 2005, The Fifth French Republic, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Charrow, N. and Lapuente, V., 2010, Does democracy produce quality of government?’ European Journal of Political Research Colomer, J.M., 2008, Comparative European Politics. 3rd Ed. Routledge, Oxon. Drake, H., 2011, Contemporary France. Palgrave, Basingstoke. Fitjar, R., 2010, Explaining variations in sub-state regional identities in Western Europe, European Journal of Political Research. Hearn, J., 2006, Rethinking Nationalism: A critical introduction, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Janda, K., et al., 2000, The challenge of democracy, Houghton Mifflin, Boston. Peele, G., et al., 2002, Developments in American politics 4. Macmillan, Basingstoke. Singh, R., 2003, Governing America: the politics of a divided democracy, Oxford University Press, Oxford. White, S., 2005, Russian Politics, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Read More