The Executive in America-Session 10

Needless to say, today the executive exercises great power on domestic and foreign affairs in the United States. For example, not only does the President set his party’s domestic legislative agenda, he can even commit troops to conflict abroad without Congressional consent. And David Harris writes, “If the president is exercising his power in areas of foreign policy during wartime, and the Congress has ceded that power to him… then the president’s power is at its greatest point,” Clearly pointing out that ultimate power has been extended to the executive today.

Now, where some may argue that in order to ensure swift implementation of policies, power must be concentrated at the top, others may worry that too much power in one man’s hand may just be..bad.

So, should the executive, especially in the USA, be allowed ultimate authority regarding a diverse array of matters, even including National Security? Heywood gives an apt explanation that in times of crises, the answer may be yes. But is it, really?

First of, an executive elected 48% on the back of wall street money cartels, 49% by a pat on the back from the pentagon and 3% his rhetoric, does not fit the ‘referent’ leader we study of in Management. Barack Obama, a lawyer by profession, elected as U.S representative may not be the fittest or rather even ‘legitimate’ man to devise a military strategy.

Heywood quite aptly points out that the Head of State is merely restricted to a symbol of national leadership. Pakistanis may beg to differ, but more so to Heywood’s side as to us, Mr. Mamnoon is rarely even seen. But Heywood extends great authority to the Head of Government, listing numerous amounts of tasks under his domain. If we are to believe Heywood, then truly one leader becomes of utmost essence. Then so much simply relies on the executive’s ability to decide. And that is, hopefully many will agree, not a safe situation for a nation to be in. 

Of course, I believe that is not true. In theory, the executive may look snazzy throwing out orders to the bureaucracy, making the ultimate decisions in crises and saving the world, but in reality, this seems remotely practical. I believe any or little authority an executive exercises is filtered through think tanks i.e pentagon and the bureaucracy to the extent that too many have already pitched in their interests. One example is Guantanamo Bay. President Obama pledged to close the facility during his campaign and signed an executive order to that effect, but Guantánamo remains open to this day. Why might that be? Obama is legally given the authority to pass such an order, so it isn’t the legalities that constrain him— it is the intense opposition to this idea amongst different ranks, according to my opinion.