In December 2009, Abdullah II, King of Jordon, dismissed the prime minister and replaced him with a palace aide and loyalist, dissolved Parliament, and postponed legislative elections for a year. For all the defects of a representative democratic system, it is far superior to autocratic rule, especially by a dictator. It is natural for people to resist preemption. “The nature of humans is they want democracy,” said Ali Dalain, an independent member of the Parliament that was dissolved. “One person cannot solve all problems and cannot make everyone happy, so people must share in determining their fate.”[1] These quotes are revealing from the standpoint of the unitary and imperial American presidency.
Regarding “one person cannot solve all problems,” the American theory of the unitary executive and, moreover, the imperial presidency can be challenged. The unitary executive means that one person as president is better than a presidential council, for example. In a council, it may be difficult to reach a final decision, which is a drawback especially in times of emergency. Hence, the president's role as commander in chief has been tied to the unitary executive model. However, the emergency card has, I submit, been overplayed. A better reason is that a final say may be needed on contending military plans, but a council's majority could be taken. Most importantly, one person can be wrong, even in military matters. Would President George W. Bush have been able to link Iraq to the attack on September 11, 2001 and thus invade the country and occupy it for years had a presidential council have had to sign off? To be sure, only Congress can declare war, for it is a conflict of interest for the commander in chief to do so. Yet the fact that such commanders have been able to unilaterally begin military engagements means that the problem of one person being wrong should be taken seriously.
The imperial presidency refers to the increase in presidential power in the twentieth century in the U.S. This has been at the expense not only of Congress, but also the state governments, given the federal power of preemption. In proposing laws, the president depends theoretically on Congressional leaders to steer the legislation through the lawmaking machinery. Should the Congress pass an alternative, the president can veto it, yet this does not mean the president's own proposal becomes law. So, constitutionally, the relationship seems balanced, and ample opportunity for voices exists. Even so, the president has an edge on Congress in that the latter goes on recesses whereas the West Wing is always working (though the same could be said of congressional staffs). So more to the point, the president is nearly always in the spotlight--relative even to individual senators--and thus can mold public opinion.
Given the increased power of the presidency, it can be argued that too much power has come to be in the hands of one person. Human nature may not handle wielding so much power very well. The Stanford experiments in the 1960's on the abuse of power testify to the problem. Whereas the presidency may have a figure head without running into this problem, spreading out the power may fit better with how humans are constituted, especially those humans who suffer from ailments such as malignant narcissism. A presidential council could put a check on such a person, especially if he tends to lose control of his urges of the moment at the risk of the reputation, at least, of the presidency and the U.S.
Disassociating the presidency from "one person" could also disspell any associated hero worship that has held on from ancient king-worship. This tendency is evinced not just when a president is sworn in, but also when he gives the State of the Union address. Contributing to the problem, the media obsesses on his every move, including what he is doing on vacation.
1. Michael Slackman, "Jordan's King Remakes His Government," The New York Times, December 22, 2009.
