Sometime ago, I had a discussion with friends, that centred on why presidents are/should be these all-powerful individuals when they are also as human as any other individual within society. The discussion even questioned the rationality of presidents often possessing powers such as pardoning murderers who have been convicted by appropriate courts of law. I don’t wish to necessarily provide answers to all questions around a debate such as this but seek to advance some of the reasons why presidents become these powerful persons once they assume the presidential role. I will for now not dwell on the difference that may exist between an elected and a selected president, although it could be implied in some arguments that the power of the president can be a direct function of his/her processes of selection.
Firstly, I will deposit that the world over presidents seem to be the centre of the nation’s collective political voice as they often (if not always) speak with authority on behalf of the nation. We hear this a lot; when some world figure dies the value of that person to the world would often come from the president’s office. When disasters strike the nation looks up to its president to provide solutions, relief and mitigation against the effects of such. These presidential responses of course are not always directly from him/her in person but the processes and systems necessary to effect such is ultimately the president’s responsibility. Secondly, and more importantly presidents are politically powerful because they are the “chief executive” of government who should possess all the authority and responsibility implied in that role.
The president is the head of the nation’s executive that is so intricately woven to the realisation of citizens’ needs and expectations and for countries’ such as Botswana where the public service is the focus and centre of any service delivery this role becomes even more significant and important.
In general terms the president has to do much to set the agenda for discussion of national issues.
In short it is the president who must set the extent of rational decision making and “rational politics” to the nation. I am aware that ordinarily politics is associated with that which is subjective, superficial, emotional and sometimes corrupt and dishonest, and therefore to speak of “rational politics” would sound to some as oxymoron. I will leave explanation for this for another day safe to say that presidents heads executives to provide rationality in decision making and guide the nation through the politics of reason and relevance.
Thirdly the presidents are often recognised as commanders’ in chief of the military and that responsibility ordinarily includes the power to declare war with other nations. Although this is a responsibility that is becoming less likely due to reduced conflicts among nations but that it is still a common provision in constitutions insulates the power of the president. You only need to reflect on the type and extent of casualties associated with wars to put the magnitude of this power into perspective, let alone think of the types of war machines, instruments and chemicals that are in the possession of military forces. When you combine the civilian and military services under his/her control then the president is in charge and head of a very large and functionally complex bureaucracy, possessing all the power to effect positive or negative changes of untold limits and proportions.
Fourthly, one has to simply look at the functional responsibilities that are usually the sole responsibility of the office of the president to understand the extent of power in any given country. In our case, in addition to the above, the president is empowered by law to dissolve parliament; to declare persons unwanted characters, without giving reasons. The president cannot be challenged in a court of law for decisions taken in the exercise of his office’s duties and some other critical decision making roles. These types of responsibilities will differ from one country to the next and will also provide the extent to which a president is powerful in the given country.
Lastly, we can also measure the extent of the president’s power by looking at instruments that may be in place to check on these roles and provisions that could ensure that in the performance of some of these functions, the president does operate with some real constraints. In other words the exercise of these powers must be measured against the effects of counterbalancing mechanisms meant to rationalise these powers. In some cases public opinion can be a guide for the president as it could set some general boundaries within which the president must operate and over the past years it’s a feature that some scribes feel we lack in our governance system. Conventional wisdom requires that presidents must always make decisions with due regard for the weight of public opinion and the cradle here is to have a system that while providing for these presidential roles that creates this all powerful individual, it must also have provisions for leader/follower interactions to enhance democratic practices.
The above efforts are of current importance to be in sync with current trends in democratic dispensations and good governance and to that extent the counterbalancing instruments and space for leadership/public engagement must be institutionalised and be critical ingredients of the decision making calculus. This will create powerful president who will act rationally and in sync with expectations and aspirations of his/her nation. In modern day governance practices even the most powerful president was never intended to the lone monster who acts unilaterally and has very relevance to the general outlook of his/her society, after all leaders can only lead with public sanctioning and acceptance of their leadership style. I say this fully aware of the complex nature of understanding and measuring the public’s acceptance and tolerance levels on decisions taken by their presidents.
Presidents were indeed meant to be powerful but more importantly rationally powerful and relevant to the accepted values and principles of modern day democratic practices and good governance.
