Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of a single executive over a plural executive

constituted by a group of ministers.

The greatest difference between the executive bodies of the USA and the UK is that the
former is a single executive body whereas the later is a plural executive constituted by a
group of ministers. A single executive body is where the arm of the executive and its powers
over legislation are given to one person, the President of the USA for example. This brings
certain problems such as accountability however it can be rewarding due to the set direction
of a singular entity. This is almost the opposite of the plural executive body in the UK, where
the Prime Minister is the first amongst equals, the equals being his cabinet. This makes
decisions more democratic but the organisation of the ministers can lead to confusion and
disunity, to a certain extent.

There are many advantages to having a single executive and one of these is the
concentrated direction of a single person that a President provides. This makes the voting
for a President extremely important because this is the main opportunity for the people to
decide the direction they want their government to be heading in. This personal agenda of
the President is an advantage because the electorate know what they are voting for during
an election and also there is more variation between the parties due to the separate beliefs
of its candidates over direction. It is also a positive because it is clear and concise, without
the need to persuade other people to think similarly to him the president can use his power
of initiative. In addition, the President has been even the mandate to govern in a singular
form by the electorate unlike the UK counterpart who is elected as more indirectly to the
President. However this personal agenda can be problematic in some cases such as the
decision to invade Iraq under G Bush, which lead to him having a 27% satisfaction rate by
2008.
In the UK’s plural executive, however, there are not such issues over the direction
given in the mind of one person such as that of the president, due to the number of people
in the government. The direction in this system is more consortium based and formed as a
collective, in theory, due to the strong party presence in the UK’s cabinet which is less
apparent in the USA’s executive. The collective direction forms the party line and
traditionally has been debated and ratified by members of the cabinet in meetings to
created a more representative and fairer direction. However since Blair’s election win in
2007 it seems that the UK has turned more towards a smaller core executive with the
introduction of bi-lateral meetings. This means that the PM is able get across his direction
more often as he is able to freeze out other members of the cabinet from the decision
making process and enforcing the collective ministerial responsibility convention.

Another certain advantage of a single executive body is the speed in which problems can be
dealt with in an emergency. A good example of this is after 9/11 where G bush was allowed
to quickly pass legislation without the need to debate it with his cabinet due to the situation
of emergency. This does highlight however the ease in which a single member can flexibly
deal with a situation rather than needing to wait in order to gain some sort of consent from
other executive members. The executive of the USA is flexible, however due to its singular
entity it is not so versatile as there are not enough people to be able to respond to problems
such as the New Orleans disaster as effectively as there would have been if there were more
executive members.
This is very unlike the plural executive of the UK, which has many ministers who
would be able to do so more effectively, in theory. However, the problem with a plural
executive is that at times a Prime Minister may find it hard to keep his ministers in control as
he may be leading the party/country in a direction that conflicts with the ideology of a
minister and so they may challenge the Prime Minister or cause him to compromise. An
example of a Prime Minister needing to compromise is John Major over the Europe issue as
Euro-sceptics and enthusiasts for the European Union split his party. However in
circumstances of emergency there is a committee named COBRA, which allows the PM to
bypass the cabinet in order to respond to the situations for example after the 7/7 bombings.
This allows the PM to act without having to organise the cabinet, which can take time and
also allows him to implement some form of power similar to the president due to the lack of
debate and personal direction even though advised by the committee members.

A final advantage top the US’s single executive is the role of the Executive office of the
President of the USA. This Office or EOP is the advisory wing of the US executive that is
appointed directly by the President after he/she wins the election. This body is good for the
President as it is key in advising new legislation as well as providing some sort of scrutiny on
the bills the president wishes to sponsor. The EOP is a great tool for the president as it was
set up to take some of the burden off of the president as his duties increased considerably
during the second part of the 20th century. This is also very important for the President as
the 19 offices that make up the EOP contain experts in their field that are allied to the
President in thanks for their jobs, as the President picks these members of the executive
machine. This is the umbrella organisation that encompasses the White House Office and
the National Security Council, which are vital in order for the President to stay in contact
with congress and have a clear route to some sort of action should the USA be threatened
like at 9/11. The EOP is certainly a positive move towards a more effective executive, as the
lone President does not have the knowledge that the EOP provides. Moreover the EOP does
not take away any powers from the President and does actually enhance his powers due to
the greater knowledge and manpower at his disposal.
The EOP is very similar to the Prime Minister’s office or PMO as it is full of experts
who advise the Prime minister on the correct direction to take. This is good for the plural
executive as it is adding more people to get a better representation of thoughts when
making decisions especially because of the specific knowledge they add, due to the ministers
not be specialists in their departments. However the rise of the PNO under Blair has been
something of concern because Blair used spin-doctors such as Alastair Campbell to consult
with rather than ministers in the cabinet and then finalised his decisions with Chancellor
Gordon Brown. The PMO does therefore increase the power of the UK executive but in some
circumstances can lead towards a more Presidential system and singular executive.

In the USA the executive is currently led by Barak Obama, the President, who has a lot of
power at his disposal, however the power wielded by one individual can lead to some
problems. One of these problems or disadvantages to a single executive is that this person
will receive all of the blame if something goes wrong, as there are few people in the public’s
eye to blame apart from the President. An example of this is after the New Orleans disaster
when George Bush was criticised for his handling of the situation and also for him
attempting to make the disaster a partisan issue. These accusations came as it was thought
that the President was slow to respond to the disaster and also he subsequently was
criticised for not giving prior warning to the Governor of Louisiana after his Executive Office
of the President had predicted the disaster. It is this criticism of the President that makes it
more difficult for a President to be favoured in the public opinion because so much is
weighted upon them.
In contrast the Prime Minister is not held so accountable due to other members of
the cabinet or of significant positions are held accountable before him. This is because of the
convention of individual ministerial responsibility, and so when a minister’s department
makes a mistake or there is a problem, they are more than likely to resign out of convention.
This means that the issues do not end with the PM as they do with the President and so
protect him from some of criticism his American counter-part faces. Although this is helpful
in creating a sense of accountability it does lead to a drain of influential politicians who have
made mistakes and so the prime minister may decide to step in and stop a minister from
resigning. An example of this is Theresa May in 2011 over the immigration easing at Gatwick
Airport, this was because David Cameron did not want a strong and able political ally to
leave the cabinet so soon after another ally, Liam Fox, had resigned. Overall the collective
accountability of the plural executive is strong for under the collective ministerial
responsibility convention all ministers must not speak out over certain bills and if they wish
to do so then they are encouraged to resign. In many ways this is seen as more accountable
than the American single executive because there are more people to blame and the specific
roles attached to those who are heads of department.

A further disadvantage to a single executive is a lack of scrutiny. In the plural executive of

the UK proposals are debated, however in a singular executive the president has less debate
to deal with, in the executive, other than his cabinet, which are less powerful in stature to
the UK’s cabinet. This lack of scrutiny, it could be argued, has been the reason for the high
amounts of rejected legislation put forward by the President, for the bills may not be up to
scratch and so are struck down by congress. An example of this is Obama’s $447 billion
dollar job package in October, which lost out to a Senate vote 50-49. Although there is a lot
of scrutiny during the legislative process as the bill assess through congress, the initial
scrutiny of a bill as it comes from the executive is weak.
This is different to the UK where this cabinet are at the heart of the debating
process and so the proposals are set after ratification talks. The cabinet on the UK was
established to create such debate and to scrutinise legislation before it went out to
parliament. Also in the UK there is a pooled knowledge, which should lead to better
legislation proposals as many minds have worked together to get it supported. However this
has been decreased somewhat by the use of bi-lateral meetings during the Blair years.

An added disadvantage of the President’s single executive is that he has no direct influence
over members of Congress, unlike in the UK where there is a parliamentary government. The
single executive relies on Congress a lot in allowing his bills to pass, but because a lot of
members in his party are in the House does not mean that they will vote in favour of his
legislation, due to the more complex nature of the US’s political allegiances. This is partly
because the President may have had a close run to winning the nomination, like Obama had
with Clinton in 2008 and so not all of the party will follow Obama in his entirety. This is
different to the UK due to the parliamentary government and the strong whipping system in
place in the House of Commons. This is a good thing for the plural executive in the UK
because it can count on the votes due to the influence of the executive in the parliament.
This influence is arguably much greater than the President as it is more consistent due to the
nature of the US Congress being able to veto any legislation. This somewhat contentious
statement is backed up by the lack of discipline in US votes for example 5 democrats voted
in favour of the Republican notion to repeal Obamacare in 2012. However, the UK is not
without its own disciplinary record problems for example the vote on the Iraq War where
only a large Labour majority carried through the legislation. Furthermore this is more
evident that the UK’s plural executive has helped to improve voting behaviour in accordance
to party lines is the appeal that one day the MP’s may become Ministers as part of the plural
executive and so they vote in favour to gain kudos to help their cause. This is unlike the US
where some members of the party especially in the Senate vote independently of the party,
as they believe to have a better understanding of the issues than the House of
representative, as well as voting on more contentious issues such as declaring war.
In conclusion, I think that the US’s singular executive is more efficient and flexible than that
of the UK’s plural executive which is more rigid and open to more inner influence. However
it is not all to say that the two are only as good as this for the single executive body is not
advantageous in the idea that only one person is leading the line and so I accountable to all
errors that may be made with specific mention to the New Orleans and Iran-contra Affair.
Also this executive make up is not perfect due to the lack of scrutiny of the president from
within the executive as the EPO acts on behalf of the president and there is not the debating
tradition in the US cabinet that there is in its UK one. This is one of the advantages to a
plural executive of a singular body is that it does improve the scrutiny and accountability of
the executive therefore making it more valid as there is a greater representation of views in
the cabinet than in one lone man, the President or Prime minister. Also the conventions of
individual and collective ministerial responsibility, do lead to the conclusion that not only is
the plural executive more effective but also more legitimate than the singular executive.