Session 10-Political executives and power

Power: absolute; unlimited power. We may not admit to it, but most of us have desired this notion at least once in our lives. When one tends to think of the power dynamics of a nation, the hierarchy that comes to mind consists of the political executive at the top. On the surface, it seems like the President and the head of the government have the most authority in a political system as Heywood claims. After all, they have the power to direct national policy, enforce legislation and run the country. But is this power really vested in a few individuals right at the top or is it merely a smokescreen disguising where real power lies?

Many would argue that in most of the countries of the world, the President or the Prime Minister are primarily responsible for leading the nation and formulating a nationwide policy for everyone to follow. But are these policies solely decided by the executive and his political cabinet or are there other decision makers involved? It can be argued that an influential factor in this decision making process are the interests of business owners, lobbyists and powerful pressure groups. These “third party” actors then indirectly guide national directives and the executive’s power becomes limited.

Secondly, the enforcement of legislation requires the consent of many factions in a political entity. The executive has to negotiate and bargain with competing factions to reach a consensual end. More specifically, the executive branch has to consider the opinions of leading politicians: charismatic leaders who have considerable power and influence over their followers in the country. Ironically, the executives are at an equal playing field as these politicians.

So is this power as real as we thought or is it illusory?