(a) Real and Nominal:
Political executive may be real or nominal. This distinction is observable clearly in England.
The King of England is the head of the executive branch of government. But in reality, he exercises no powers.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
All powers the King are exercised by the cabinet. Hence the position of the British monarch is titular He is the nominal executive. The cabinet is the real executive in England.
This analogy is to a certain extent applicable to India and Orissa. While all executive functions in Orissa are carried out in the name of the Governor the cabinet wields real power in the State administration.
So the Governor may be called a nominal executive and the cabinet may be called as the real executive of the State.
Image Source: political-views.net
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The nominal or titular executive need not be a hereditary king. He may be elected as well. For instance, the Indian President is elected, though his constitutional position is more or less like the British monarch.
(b) Parliamentary and Presidential:
The real executive may be parliamentary, or non-parliamentary. The Cabinet in England or India is an example of parliamentary executive. It is born out of the legislature and is responsible to it.
On the other hand, the U.S. President is a non-parliamentary or presidential executive. His office is independent of legislative interference. It is needless to discuss in detail the distinction between parliamentary and non-parliamentary executive, as the same has been elaborated else where in this book.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(c) Single and Plural:
However, another form of executive, that is relatively rare, is plural or collegiate executive. When the power of the Chief Executive is vested in a single individual but in a group of persons it is said to be a plural executive. The best example of such a form of executive is the Executive in Switzerland.
The executive power in Switzerland is vested in a body of seven members known as the Federal Council although one of the members functions as the President of the Swiss Republic, he wields no real power.
All the seven members have corporate responsibility for executive functions. In the old U.S.S.R., the executive power was vested in a body of 39 persons known as the Presidium during the communist regime. It was the example of the collegiate executive. As opposed to it, the single executive is found in most of the countries.
The collegiate executive has been subject to a lot ft criticisms. It is said that collegiate executive destroys the very first requisite of an efficient executive. Concentration of authority is the first requisite of the executive.
But a plural executive destroys responsibility, unnecessarily takes of time and is highly dangerous in times of war and emergency. Advocates of plural executive, on the other hand, contend that single executive is more dangerous and is likely to become autocratic. Moreover, a group of men are expected to be wiser than a single individual.
Whatever be the arguments on either side, the working of plural executive In Switzerland has been a success. But in general, plural executive is not plural. The success of the Swiss Executive can mainly be attributed to the spirit and tradition of Swiss democracy.
It is difficult to evaluate the role of the Presidium in the then U.S.S.R., because in the then U.S.S.R., it was the Communist Party which controlled the governmental machinery. However, modern public Opinion is in favour of single executive. Most of the modern States have single executive.
(d) Hereditary and Elective:
The executive of the State may be either hereditary or elective or combination of both. Hereditary executive is defended on the ground that it maintains continuity and the legacy of the past. It is found where there is monarchical form of government. England is the classic example of hereditary executive.
The head of the State, namely, the King or Queen assumes office by virtue of birth. In most of the other States the executive is elective. The mode of election differs from the State to the State. There may be direct or indirect elections. The mode of appointment of the executive is discussed below.
Mode of Appointment:
Following are the alternative methods usually adopted for the appointment of the political executive.
Firstly, ‘hereditary principle’ is adopted in England, Nepal and Ethiopia for the purpose of the appointment of the hereditary Monarch. Succession to the office is governed by the law of primogeniture (the right of the eldest son to inherit the office).an alternative mode of choosing the executive is through direct action by the people.
The President of the U.S.A. is directly elected by the people. So are the Irish, Austrian and Portuguese presidents. This mode of appointing the chief executives is through indirect election, The Indian President is indirectly elected by the members of the Parliament and the member of State Legislative Assemblies.
Indirect election is appreciated on the ground that when most capable men of the nation chose the chief executive, he is likely to be more competent than the one popularly elected. The forth tuition method of executive appointment is election by the legislature, in Switzerland the collegiate executive is elected by their Swiss legislature.
The Indian president too elected by their Swiss legislature. The Indian president too elected by the union of state legislatures. A major reason for adoption of this method is to ensure the harmony between the legislature and the executive.
Lastly, a few National executive is appointed by the principle of nomination the governor General of Canada, Australia. South Africa and New Zeland are appointed by the British Crown. The governor of India States is nominated by the President of India.