Presidential Powers of Iran and the United States - Essay Example

Presidential powers of Iran and the United s Introduction The Iranian and United s government havea number of similarities and differences in their governance structure and legislative framework. A superficial look of the two governments show a lot in common as both governments are elected through a universal suffrage process and are supported by an independent judiciary and legislature. However, the Iranian government is based on Islamic principles which differentiates from a more liberal and Christian inclined government of the United States. The level of devolution and separation of power is also a common variation between the two countries as one is a strictly federal country with different levels of governance while one has an executive president and a supreme religious leader (Deveaux, 2014). Differences in Iranian and American presidential powers In Iran, the president holds the second most important position after the supreme religious leader otherwise known as Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The president has an important public role and image but the country’s constitution that was established after the establishment of the Islamic republic in 1979. The supreme leader controls a significant proportion of the executive branch, possessing powers to make various appointments and decisions affecting the country. The president of Iran is tasked with the role of developing economic policies for the country through the support of the legislature (Kriner & Reeves, 2014). The supreme leader of the country has supreme powers over all issues on the domestic security and foreign affairs policies. Such a situation has negatively affected the global image of the country’s president as he is unable to make decisions while on international trips without the intervention of the supreme leader (Jones, 2011). The nature of distribution of powers in the country has created a limited constitution kind of government in which the powers of the national government are limited only to specific areas that are of national interest. The discretional power of different state organs, institution and public office holders are limited and enforced based solely on the provisions of the law. The impact of the limited government concept on the current governments has remained a major controversy in different public debate environments but its benefits have been attributed to the continued protection (Deveaux, 2014). The president is in charge of domestic and international security and foreign relations policies and develops programs to improve the global position of country. While the parliament of Iran has little influence on foreign and domestic security policies, the situation in the United States is different (Deveaux, 2014). However, the president has the power to veto legislation as long as the opposing side cannot marshal more than two thirds of the members of the legislature to surpass his veto (Kriner & Reeves, 2014). The supreme leader of Iran is in charge of developing general policies affecting the Islamic republic of Iran, a position that has enabled him to set the tone and direction of the country’s foreign and domestic policies. These responsibilities are enshrined in the country’s constitution and they have significantly clipped the powers of the democratically elected presidents of Iran. In the United States, the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces and is in charge of various decisions involving the country’s military and as the commander in chief, the president of the United States has trotted the globe with the signature plane, delta one, a symbol of his power as the president of the country. In contrast, the president of Iran has no such powers as the supreme leader is the commander in chief of the armed forces and also chairs the country’s intelligence and security committees (Landau, 2014). The president of the United States appoints members of the Supreme Court and the chief justice of the country in conjunction with the country’s congress and the same also applies to other state positions such as the attorney general, cabinet secretaries and members of various constitutional committees of the country. In Iran, such powers are not enjoyed by the president as the constitution of the country has delegated them to the supreme leader. The supreme leader has the power to appoint and dismiss the judges, commanders of the forces and other important security positions and other positions without consultation with the legislature while the president of Iran is instead the deputy commander in chief and chairman of the military of the republic (Alavi-Nia & Jalilifar, 2013). The president of the United States has one principle assistant, the vice president who is his running mate during the election process and is allowed to therefore pick his preferred vice before the elections campaign and the two appear in the ballot paper during the general election. As a result, the vice president cannot be replaced unless under the provisions of the United States constitution. though the vice president has less executive powers in the presence of the president, the constitution places him next on line in the event that the president days or is incapacitated and therefore unfit to lead the country. The president of Iran has varied number of vice president, which are determined by the president himself, and the supreme leader of the country (Landau, 2014). The president currently has 12 vice presidents with the first vice holding more executive powers and is mandated to chair cabinet meetings in the absence of the president. The primary role of any vice president of the United States is to be ready to take office in case of any eventuality like incapacity and death. Article two of the United States constitution grants the president power to execute and enforce the laws that are legislated by the country’s congress. To achieve this, the executive has created 15 executive departments, which are tasked with carrying out the constitutional mandate of the president. These departments, which include health, homeland security, defense and foreign affairs among others, are tasked with implementing various constitutional mandates of the president (Kriner & Reeves, 2014). In Iran, the president has powers to appoint the executive council but must consult with the supreme leader before such appointments can be ratified. The supreme leader has the powers to turn down an appointee, a situation that depicts the president as powerless before the supreme. In contrast, the united states president only require congress to approve an appointee before they can be sworn in without consulting any individual within the executive (Love & Garg, 2014). The president of the United States has powers to negotiate and ratify international treaties and agreements with other countries of the world but such a treaty can only come into effect if supported with two thirds of the elected members of the country’s congress. Signing of foreign treaties and agreements in Iran is the preserve of the supreme leader as opposed to the president (Nader, Thaler & Bohandy, 2011). Such treaties can also be ratified without the input of the legislature, a demonstration of the supreme role of the Ayatollah as compared to the president of the country. As the commander in chief, the president of the United States has trotted the globe with the signature plane, delta one, a symbol of his power as the president of the country. In contrast, the president of Iran has no such powers as the supreme leader is the commander in chief of the armed forces and chairs the country’s intelligence and security committees. The president of the United States appoints members of the Supreme Court and the chief justice of the country in conjunction with the country’s congress. The same also applies to other state positions such as the attorney general, cabinet secretaries and members of various constitutional committees of the country. In Iran, such powers are not enjoyed by the president as the constitution of the country has delegated them to the supreme leader (Samiei, 2012). The supreme leader has the power to appoint and dismiss the judges, supreme commander of the Islamic revolutionary guard corps and other positions without consultation with the legislature. The president of Iran is instead the deputy commander in chief and chairman of the military of the republic (Scheuerman, 2012). The president of the United States has one principle assistant, the vice president who is his running mate during the election process (Dehghanpisheh, 2012). The president therefore picks his preferred vice before the elections campaign and the two appear in the ballot paper during the general election (Alavi-Nia & Jalilifar, 2013). The president of the United States also has powers to summon the legislation of the country into a special session and to call for the adjournment of the two houses fails to agree on the best date. These powers are enjoyed by the supreme leader of Iran who has a special committee to monitor and control the functions of the legislation in the country. Through different approaches, the president controls the supply of money into the economy as a way of strengthening the currency and inflation. Through this function, the government ensures that the economy is protected from the impacts of credit and financial crisis as witnessed in the previous years. The president is also constitutionally required to regulate the trade within different states in the country and with international markets (Love & Garg, 2014). This ensures that unscrupulous trading activities are controlled and illegal entry of products restricted. Treaties that border on security and protection of the territorial boundaries of the country like the north Atlantic treaties are a role of the national government. As a result, no other branch of government or state can declare war against a foreign country as this is the constitutional role of the president (Landau, 2014). Before the American civil war, debates on the scope of the powers of the national government raged but most believed that the limitation of the president power would be in the interest of the people (Nader, Thaler & Bohandy, 2011). The debates influenced the limitation of the powers of the president and different reasons have been cited for the limited nature of government in the country. One of the main contributing factors was the legacy of revolution, which created the fear of the establishment of centralized power system whose strong influence would affect the function of other state and regional governments. This was complicated by the capabilities of the state governments to perform their responsibilities despite lack of residual sovereignty as compared to the president (Scheuerman, 2012). The nature of the union and the supremacy of the president were settled through the protracted civil war in the country but did not address the controversial issue the division of responsibilities between the different levels of the government. The limited power to the president has also been attributed to the beliefs of the citizens that a strong and all powerful national government will limited the liberty and rights of the people. This approach was thus viewed as a solution to the problem of granting and concentrating power to one level of government that would negate the gains made on liberty and freedom (Nader, Thaler & Bohandy, 2011). This made more sense to the founding generations and the framers that believed in strengthening localism through the restriction of the powers of the president. Federalism has been the root cause for the democratic space in the United States and this is attributed to the limited powers vested on the central government (Samiei, 2012). In Iran, the president does not enjoy such powers as the constitution of the country has delegated them to the supreme leader. The supreme leader has the power to appoint and dismiss the judges, supreme commander of the Islamic revolutionary guard corps and other positions without consultation with the legislature while the president of Iran is instead the deputy commander in chief and chairman of the military of the republic. Similarities in American and Iranian presidential powers Despite the similarities that have so far been addressed in the paper, the president of the United States and that of Iran share a number of powers and roles. The two presidents are elected through a popular vote after every four years for strictly two terms as enshrined in the constitutions of the two countries. Both the presidents of the United States and Iran have power of mercy, which enables them to pardon convicts who are serving various jail terms according to the mercy committees. Both the presidents are also allowed to award honors and awards to outstanding civilians and military professionals for their service to the countries (Scheuerman, 2012). Conclusion The United States is a mature democracy with over two decades long presidential system that has vested significant powers on the president of the country. The president is elected through an electoral college that also elects the deputy president who acts as the principle assistant of the president. Iran, on the other hand, is a religious country, which despite practicing democratic presidential system has his powers curtailed by the constitution. The country has the religious supreme leader who has the primary executive powers and makes significant decisions of domestic security and foreign relation policies. References Alavi-Nia, M. & Jalilifar, A., 2013. We believe the Iranian nation can: The manifestation of power in Iranian televised presidential debates, Language & Communication, 33(1), pp. 8-25. Dehghanpisheh, B., 2012. "The Ayatullah vs. the President." Time 179(9), pp. 32-35. Deveaux, C., 2014. The Fourth Zone of Presidential Power: Analysing the Debt-Ceiling Standoffs Through the Prism of Youngstown Steel, Connecticut Law Review, 47(2), pp. 395-434. Jones, P., 2011, Succession and the Supreme Leader in Iran, Survival, 53(6), pp. 105-126. Kriner, D. & Reeves, A., 2014. The Electoral College and Presidential Particularism, Boston University Law Review, 94(3), pp. 741-766. Landau, J., 2014. Presidential Constitutionalism and Civil Rights, William & Mary Law Review, 55(5), pp. 1719-1785. Love, J, & Garg, A 2014, Presidential Inaction and the Separation of Powers, Michigan Law Review, 112(7), pp. 1195-1250. Nader, A., Thaler, D. & Bohandy, S., 2011. The Next Supreme Leader: Succession In The Islamic Republic Of Iran, Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Samiei, M., 2012. Najaf and Iranian Politics: Analysing the Way the Hawzah of Najaf Influenced Iranian Politics between Two Revolutions, Journal Of Shia Islamic Studies, 5(3), pp. 277-294. Scheuerman, W.E., 2012. Emergencies, Executive Power, and the Uncertain Future of US Presidential Democracy, Law & Social Inquiry, 37(3), pp. 743-767. Read More