"Executive in a State" is a person or party(may be) who is the head of state and government and it is also a supreme authority to administrate all departments,enforcing Laws and policy and ceremonial responsibilities and sign of unity in a state. But Question is arisen which type of executives is best?
In U.S.A, there is a Presidential executive who is considered most powerful person in America. It is best example to give power to some person who is trusted by all and He will use it rightly without any intense accountability. But there is also example of Pakistan in which lot of institutions like have right to ask any act of Executive(including President and PM,CMs e.t.c) but executives feel them kings and they are accountable to any institution and People. There are many other examples across the World in which Executives use there unlimited Powers like in North Korea, Russia and African Countries but they are doing those acts which have not given them by their constitution. They are not accountable to any one.
So In my opinion executive should not be a person because all of power is concentrated at one Point or institution and which leads to Anarchy because "Absolute Power, Corrupts Absolutely". There should be division of Power and Authority between the Institutions.
In U.S.A, there is a Presidential executive who is considered most powerful person in America. It is best example to give power to some person who is trusted by all and He will use it rightly without any intense accountability. But there is also example of Pakistan in which lot of institutions like have right to ask any act of Executive(including President and PM,CMs e.t.c) but executives feel them kings and they are accountable to any institution and People. There are many other examples across the World in which Executives use there unlimited Powers like in North Korea, Russia and African Countries but they are doing those acts which have not given them by their constitution. They are not accountable to any one.
So In my opinion executive should not be a person because all of power is concentrated at one Point or institution and which leads to Anarchy because "Absolute Power, Corrupts Absolutely". There should be division of Power and Authority between the Institutions.
2 comments:
I agree with how the power has been distributed unequally in the past, and it has its own repercussions. The most brutal and insane form of 'one man rule' was in George Bush's government. He started the 'War on Terror'. Many people argue that the timing was not right but then some say he started it on his own. He was the first president to invade citizens' privacy. As there was no one powerful enough to stop him, he had the control and thus, he continued to do as he liked.
Ali - You have highlighted some of the main criticisms of 'absolute executives' and these criticisms have concerned many around the world. Do you think that in Pakistan, the Executive has absolute power or whether it is limited, to some extent, by the judiciary and the emerging civil society?
Moreover, often it is argued that when power is concentrated with the execute, execution is more effective, it would be interesting to examine whether this is true or not, and if so, then for what kinds of countries.
Post a Comment