As of now most of my questions have been in relation to the legislative branch which is in my eyes the most important of the bunch. Nevertheless for now I have decided to go another tangent and give some attention to the other 3 branches of government within the united states. This week were on the executive.
As the title implies what I am more or less asking about is what could effectively be classified as a plural executive and it's viability in the united states because screw the unitary executive. When you take a look at the presidential system one immediately obvious flaw that comes to mind to me is the executive branch. It's powerful, has a single face unlike the legislative perfect for populist appeals, has a strong potential for and ability to have power consolidated in it, and ultimately is a great vehicle for any potential would be dictator.
When you look at the nations which have chosen this system of government this seems to play out quite a lot. Thankfully the united states is a rather lucky bastard overall. Strong democratic institutions which while shaky in the beginning have grown stronger over time like roman concrete, and a reasonable good man as the first executive who set a proper precedent. How many first leaders in other post colonial nations could claim such a thing?
We have been lucky mostly still it's come at a cost. An increasingly weak and ineffective legislature which seems to be a constant state of paralysis and more concerned with lining the pockets of corporate backers and less with serving the people. And one doesn't even need to get started on the imperial presidency and all the baggage that comes with that. Still we've been lucky more or less.
Never the less as one may notice the theme of most of my threads has been in relation to attempts to reform the united states government in some small or large way without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And so this is the topic of this thread. Still to provide a bit of context:
During a conversation I had with a friend or two we spoke about how it was rather strange that the founding fathers invested so much powers into the executive with seemingly no checks what so ever despite the feat the had with the legislative they seemed to lack it for the executive. It seems in a way they presumed only Washington would ever be president and that they were incapable of thinking other men would ever have the office, ones that may not be so great. Sure congress has got the power of the purse, which is nice, can theoretically impeach the guy, highly unlikely, and can overdue a veto, not without going through some nasty hoops, still it seems a little bare in my eyes. So how was one to fix this problem we asked. Though a lot of ideas were passed forth the one that came most to mind was in relation to structure. Why not just make the president more limited in the first place?
The first idea that comes to mind is a parliamentary model, but then you run into a few issues. The most glaring is the fact that the united states has just fought a war against the premier parliamentary government plus if that wasn't enough you got Montesquieu in the mix. So that leaves us with another option one spear headed by the french in fact. The Semi-Presidential model in which the executive is comprised of more than one individual with each handling different responsibilities. The most common format involves a prime minister, appointed by legislature, and a president, elected by the people. This format is pretty nice and has the advantage of involving dualism in a format reminiscent of the congress. Still there are a few problems with this format:
The most obvious in my eyes is the direct election of the president which I can't see flying so hotly to many of the mob rule fearful founding fathers. Another issue is the prime minister, the name in itself is an issue and didn't even appear in Britain until something like the late 19th to early 20th century. Also which house elects the prime minister is a question that I think would be bought up. The united states unlike most of the nations which have the system from what I can see is uniquely endowed with two more or less co-equal houses of government. So simply deferring the role to the lower house doesn't really work considering neither house is technically the "low" house.
My solution to these problem is a rather simple one. The creation of two offices: The President and the Consul. The President will be the head of state and commander in chief handling foreign affairs just like normal but rather than being directly elected he instead is appointed by but not responsible to(no confidence votes) by the senate. The consul will be his opposite handling the domestic affairs of the nation as head of government but will instead be appointed by the house of representatives with the same stipulations(no confidence vote). I imagine to add some flavor there terms would mirror the bodies with the president serving 6 years and the consul serving 2 years.
This in my eyes kills two or three birds with one stone. The Legislature has a powerful check on the executive but does not dominate them which makes the Montesquieu fans happy. The states receive direct representation via the president due to the fact that he is elected by the senate, which also makes the small states happy. Finally but not least the fears over mob rule are more or less solved via the consul being chosen in the name of the people yes but being appointed by a responsible body of gentleman rather than the common rabble.
This is just my thoughts on the matter. What do you guys think? How would such a system be implemented and what would be the results of doing so? If in your opinion this format is not really feasible what format do you think would be necessary for a system like this to be implemented and work? Discuss.
As the title implies what I am more or less asking about is what could effectively be classified as a plural executive and it's viability in the united states because screw the unitary executive. When you take a look at the presidential system one immediately obvious flaw that comes to mind to me is the executive branch. It's powerful, has a single face unlike the legislative perfect for populist appeals, has a strong potential for and ability to have power consolidated in it, and ultimately is a great vehicle for any potential would be dictator.
When you look at the nations which have chosen this system of government this seems to play out quite a lot. Thankfully the united states is a rather lucky bastard overall. Strong democratic institutions which while shaky in the beginning have grown stronger over time like roman concrete, and a reasonable good man as the first executive who set a proper precedent. How many first leaders in other post colonial nations could claim such a thing?
We have been lucky mostly still it's come at a cost. An increasingly weak and ineffective legislature which seems to be a constant state of paralysis and more concerned with lining the pockets of corporate backers and less with serving the people. And one doesn't even need to get started on the imperial presidency and all the baggage that comes with that. Still we've been lucky more or less.
Never the less as one may notice the theme of most of my threads has been in relation to attempts to reform the united states government in some small or large way without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And so this is the topic of this thread. Still to provide a bit of context:
During a conversation I had with a friend or two we spoke about how it was rather strange that the founding fathers invested so much powers into the executive with seemingly no checks what so ever despite the feat the had with the legislative they seemed to lack it for the executive. It seems in a way they presumed only Washington would ever be president and that they were incapable of thinking other men would ever have the office, ones that may not be so great. Sure congress has got the power of the purse, which is nice, can theoretically impeach the guy, highly unlikely, and can overdue a veto, not without going through some nasty hoops, still it seems a little bare in my eyes. So how was one to fix this problem we asked. Though a lot of ideas were passed forth the one that came most to mind was in relation to structure. Why not just make the president more limited in the first place?
The first idea that comes to mind is a parliamentary model, but then you run into a few issues. The most glaring is the fact that the united states has just fought a war against the premier parliamentary government plus if that wasn't enough you got Montesquieu in the mix. So that leaves us with another option one spear headed by the french in fact. The Semi-Presidential model in which the executive is comprised of more than one individual with each handling different responsibilities. The most common format involves a prime minister, appointed by legislature, and a president, elected by the people. This format is pretty nice and has the advantage of involving dualism in a format reminiscent of the congress. Still there are a few problems with this format:
The most obvious in my eyes is the direct election of the president which I can't see flying so hotly to many of the mob rule fearful founding fathers. Another issue is the prime minister, the name in itself is an issue and didn't even appear in Britain until something like the late 19th to early 20th century. Also which house elects the prime minister is a question that I think would be bought up. The united states unlike most of the nations which have the system from what I can see is uniquely endowed with two more or less co-equal houses of government. So simply deferring the role to the lower house doesn't really work considering neither house is technically the "low" house.
My solution to these problem is a rather simple one. The creation of two offices: The President and the Consul. The President will be the head of state and commander in chief handling foreign affairs just like normal but rather than being directly elected he instead is appointed by but not responsible to(no confidence votes) by the senate. The consul will be his opposite handling the domestic affairs of the nation as head of government but will instead be appointed by the house of representatives with the same stipulations(no confidence vote). I imagine to add some flavor there terms would mirror the bodies with the president serving 6 years and the consul serving 2 years.
This in my eyes kills two or three birds with one stone. The Legislature has a powerful check on the executive but does not dominate them which makes the Montesquieu fans happy. The states receive direct representation via the president due to the fact that he is elected by the senate, which also makes the small states happy. Finally but not least the fears over mob rule are more or less solved via the consul being chosen in the name of the people yes but being appointed by a responsible body of gentleman rather than the common rabble.
This is just my thoughts on the matter. What do you guys think? How would such a system be implemented and what would be the results of doing so? If in your opinion this format is not really feasible what format do you think would be necessary for a system like this to be implemented and work? Discuss.