The role of cabinet members in presidential policy formation

Stress: Concept Analysis

Should president's cabinet members have a larger role in the formation of public policy?

The concept of democracy explains that people should be autonomous and the public representatives should be accountable for their actions. The legislature acts as people's representatives, as well as their agents, and, they therefore, play a major role in democracy. In other words, the legislature functions as a law making body in democratic society. This definition, however, addresses the wider range of activities and the duties that the legislature performs, but fails to account for the numerous types of legislators that exists in various nations. In accounting for the different types of legislatures, it is essential to first identify the other arms of the government that influences formation of public policies. Each arm of the government is entitled to different political power, and, this is where the concept of separation of powers comes in (Pfiffner, James and Roger 251-253).

Initially, there are three arms of the government; the legislature, executive and the judiciary. The dogma of distribution of powers between the three branches of the government embodies some three fundamental principles. Limited government is the first fundamental principle, and this implies that, the Bill of Rights limits the power held by the government. The second fundamental principle is the separation of personnel, which means, the law requires a single individual to hold a single office within the three branches of the government. The final fundamental principle watches over the other two arms of the government, and sometimes exercises authority over them to avoid their dominance. Some scholars refer to separation of powers as shared powers, and this entails the checks and balances, which is a role-played by each of the three arms of the government. This paper shall discuss the role of the cabinet members in formation of the public policy (Pfiffner, James and Roger 251-253).

Overview

The top executive staff is the president and he exercises his power by recommending legislation to the congress. He performs this exercise in the beginning of the year within the State of the Union Address. The president uses this opportunity in recommending to the congress what he wants them to do. In addition, the president has authority of vetoing bills implemented by the Congress. Entrusting such power to the president hinders the efficiency of the government, because the Bills that the Congress passes could be essential, but they president may reject based on his reasons. This is not right because the Congress may have used numerous resources and time discussing with the public before presenting the Bill. However, this is a two way process, whereby, the congress has powers to amend, block or even discard items presented by legislation, and recommended by the president. As Michael says (13-15), the cabinet can as well have the powers to overrule the president's rejection, if it influences more than majority in the houses of Congress.

Every president has a manifesto that guides him/her fulfill the pledges made to the public. A strong government requires an enhanced relationship between the president and the Congress. A president must consider the interests of the country prior to fulfilling his/her interests. He must be a candidate of high esteem and holds high integrity in the overall performance of his duties in the office. The president's critical responsibility is to come up with a budget and surrender it to the congress (Pfiffner, James and Roger 251-253).

The budget that the president puts forward to the Cabinet members is subject to amendments as they wait approval to become laws. The cabinet members evaluates the Bills approves those that need to be enacted, and disapproves those that that require debating between the President and the congress members. This process requires viable communication between them and total accord in order to enact autonomous laws. Michael (13-15) warns on the bad on the existence of a bad relationship between the President and the Cabinet members because the outcome is implementation of flawed laws that compromises democracy.

The relation between the president and the cabinet members is very fundamental because it forms part of the checks and balances that the constitution uses in determining the effectiveness of the policies implemented. Even though, there must be coordination between the Cabinet members and the president, mostly the latter has the final word. The President leads and gives directions concerning the best programs and the outlined Bill of rights. Cabinet members have numerous responsibilities in determining the span of the public policies implemented. They have a key responsibility of enacting legislation that is appropriate for the nation considering the budget surrendered by the president (Michael 13-15).

Even though, the cabinet plays a key role in implementing public policies, presidents from various countries regard the cabinet as a political institution. They assert that Cabinet rarely accomplishes its objectives and numerous people doubts the utility of both the president and the Cabinet members. In addition, they complain that the Cabinet have very many faults and requires amendments, however, is worries them why the same cabinet structure remains for very many centuries. I consider the bases of their argument as watertight because they fail to provide concrete reasons for transforming the existing cabinet (Michael 13-15).

Despite the criticisms, the cabinet plays a major role towards the President and department secretaries, and if its role is to advice the president, then it becomes difficult to fulfill the expected responsibilities. The functions are achievable only when the cabinet becomes a medium for management, and this is the only moment when its utility becomes significant and noticeable.

DISCUSSION

Four areas that cabinet plays reinforce its role in forming public policy, and include:

1. Political and managerial advice

2. Interdepartmental conflict resolution

3. Administrative coherence

4. Political assistance

Interdepartmental Conflict Resolution

For a government to operate smoothly, it must have laws, and the congress is responsible for establishing laws that governs a nation. Even though, the cabinet is entitled to authority and accountability, it encounters numerous challenges while exercising its powers. Various laws may permit various cabinet members the responsibility of managing similar programs, but aimed to accomplish conflicting outcome. For instance, the Food / animal department may have conflicting outcome with agriculture department.

Pfiffner, James and Roger assert (251-253) are uncertain on whether in case of conflicting issues, if the cabinet is useful in finding a solution. In such a scenario, the cabinet is not essential in resolving such a conflict, and the only way to solve such an issue is for the two equal- leveled cabinet members to meet and come up with a solution. This does not require a cabinet meeting. Cabinet meeting gives cabinet secretaries a chance to meet and solve disputes in a harmonious way. Deputy cabinet secretaries can also meet in case a particular scenario requires their presence. They may come up with issues that require immediate attention. It is not obvious that cabinet secretaries would agree to every issue presented during the meeting, and conflicts may arise. Disagreements are healthy and inevitable and they are very important because that demonstrates a democratic society. When they disagree on some issues, they are capable of inventing strong public policies based on strong leadership and democracy. This explains why the cabinet members should play a larger role in formation of public policy. Every person views an idea in different perception, and the issue becomes substantial or disputed after a heated discussion, as the issues presented are based on objectives and not personal interests.

Administrative consistency

After the president meets with cabinet members, they are in a position of giving a comprehensive report to difference organs of the government based on decisions made. As mentioned in the introductory, the cabinet should have a good relationship with the president. Cabinet members should stick together and perform their duties as one group with a common objective. The president chairs the meeting and everyone should incline in one direction; the president's direction. However, presidents differ in the way they carry out the administrative duty.

Prior to conducting the meeting, the cabinet members may be alerted to submit their views and recommendations pertaining to a particular question that the president suggests for debate. In essence, what I mean here is that, there is no defined way through which the president and the cabinet members should conduct their meetings, but what matters is the function they play in formulating the policies. Even though academic qualification for the Cabinet members is essentials, I believe experience is overrides it.

Political support

Pfiffner, James and Roger assert (251-253) argues that a key fundamental responsibility of the cabinet to the president is the political sphere. As discussed, the president plays a key duty in appointing the cabinet members that he deems are loyal to him and will support his policies and proposals. Therefore, in order for the cabinet to appear presentable as public figures, they must agree to work with president, and adhere to his policies.

Personal analysis and conclusion

As Pfiffner, James and Roger assert (251-253) the issue of democracy is entirely a concept that is unfriendly to most government officers because of separation of powers. The president is the chief executive officer and therefore, to have the final word on every decision made based on his own discretion. However, when the concept of democracy and power sharing slots in, he ceases to hold the huge power.

Separation of powers generates a system of governance that is typically hostile to presidents. It fragments the political power and shares the responsibilities to other arms of the government that plays a major role in formulating the public policies. For one to be conversant with the dynamics of control one must have knowledge on how the government is run and the organs involved in running it.

Michael argues that of the three arms of the government; the legislative role is a fundamental organ, in that, those involved in formulating the rules and laws that govern a nation are very essential (13-15). He is referring to the presidential cabinet members. They play a larger role in formation of public policy. The counsel and advisory services they offer assists him/her make unbiased decisions. It also serves as a location where the president can deal with most of the administrative branch; therefore, enhancing administrative consistency. The cabinet is not at present and is never likely to develop into a collective responsibility body. Presidents cannot share their responsibilities or legal authority with the cabinet; therefore, there are inherent restrictions to the Cabinet, which reforms cannot overcome or alter (Landau 8). The cabinet, its members along with its sub-group provide for the president an adaptive source through which he can handle the government's executive branch.