Defining Terrorism

Amidst the recent controversy surrounding terrorism and its meaning for our society, I feel that this piece can help people to find a better understanding.

A critical evaluation of Cooper’s (2001: 83) definition of terrorism as “the intentional generation of massive fear by human beings for the purpose of securing or maintaining control over other human beings”.

 Terrorism is a massively contentious issue which many analysts look at from differing viewpoints. Perhaps one of the most prominent questions is how to define terrorism. This alone is debatable, with many definitions using the same words as others but taking on a slightly different meaning due to the context in which they were written and the opinion of the writer. Despite Cooper’s definition appearing both broad and easy to apply, terrorism is nevertheless an essentially contested concept. In order to critically evaluate the statement, it will be first important to assess its credibility by cross referencing it with other standpoints on defining terrorism. There are many standpoints when it comes to defining terrorism; many even conflict with each other due to their ideologically driven nature. For example there are state and non-state definitions and also, new and traditional theories on what terrorism is. It will also be worth considering, in context of Cooper’s definition, what the idea of state terrorism means for defining terrorism. Most importantly, for a definition such as Cooper’s, the quote must be applicable to contemporary examples of terrorism such as the war in Iraq. All such questions must be asked of Cooper’s definition in order to perform a critical evaluation and as such, attempt to come to a considered and amicable conclusion of what terrorism could be defined as.

The main issue for governments or analysts trying to define terrorism is that terrorism is an essentially contested concept and contains no truth. It then in turn becomes difficult to analyse all the aspects of terrorism and create a meaningful sentence which looks at all the aspects evenly. It is impossible therefore to develop the perfect definition as there will always be opposition regarding legitimacy, rendering every definition untrue. As Laqueur explains, “There is no authoritative systematic guide to terrorism – no Clausewitz, not even a Jomini – and perhaps there will never be one, simply because there is not one terrorism but a variety of terrorisms and what is true for one does not necessarily apply to others” (Laqueur, 2003, p. 8). There is however, a need for an international definition to be created in some form due to the increase in terrorist activities concerning the western world in recent times. As Hoffman says, “An analysis of political violence is particularly important, given the fact that authoritarian regimes may find it convenient to label all manifestations of violent opposition as terrorist in nature” (Hoffman, 2009, p. 451). Cooper’s definition is an interesting take on terrorism and does lend itself slightly to a certain aspect of terrorism, that being state terrorism. State terrorism is not terrorism as it is immediately thought of but is for sure a very dangerous and malicious variation. Whittaker says that, “The high costs of modern warfare, and concern about non-conventional escalation, as well as the danger of defeat and the unwillingness to appear as the aggressor, have turned terrorism into an efficient, convenient, and generally discrete weapon for attaining state interests in the international realm” (Whittaker, 2001, p. 37). Although it could be argued that state terrorism does not exist at all. This is due to thoughts that terrorism is most often brought about due to a group wanting change rather than a government trying to maintain the status quo. There have however been many examples of where states have used military force to keep its population in line. Such as in Argentina where a government funded organization known as the AAA squad (Argentinian Anti-Communist Alliance) killed in total over one thousand five hundred people who opposed the government. During the mid seventies, the group was at its most brutal and was ordered to kill many political activists but also senior officials such as police officers and judges (Valente, 2007). This was, as Cooper’s definition states; an intentional generation of massive fear which in theory allowed the government to ‘maintain control’.

However, Cooper’s definition stretches beyond just state terrorism and could be used to describe both new and traditional theories. New terrorism is what we see from Al Qaeda today, with tactics such as suicide missions which draw their thought from religious persuasion. Muslim extremism and its aims very much befit the aims and ideas of new terrorism, as it sees violent destruction as an end in itself. As field states, “Proponents of the concept argue that contemporary terrorist groups are operating in an unprecedented manner and pose an entirely new type of terrorist threat” (Field, 2009, p. 1). Again this would be the intentional generation of fear which Cooper’s quote defines. Looking at Al Qaeda, it would appear that its members cannot be reasoned with whilst performing their acts of terrorism as they believe they are doing what is right in accordance to their religion. This mentality gives them the power to generate, as the title definition states, massive fear. More traditional forms of terrorism see destruction and violence as simply a pathway to advantages regarding political ends. According to Field, “The ‘traditional terrorism’ of the past was linked to a predominantly nationalist or separatist agenda and was usually concerned with the political situation within a specific region or country” (Field, 2009, p. 3). Cooper’s quote covers this as well when it communicates the ‘securing’ of power for those enacting terrorism. This differs from the example of the Al Qaeda suicide bombers, who of course cannot secure power from beyond the grave. Therefore Cooper’s definition can show, when taken in context of a given situation, two differing variations of what terrorism is at the same time without necessarily undermining the other.

Alongside contemporary thinkers and analysts such as Cooper, many states have attempted to define what terrorism is. State definitions have often been seen to have conflicted with other non-state definitions in their assessments of terrorism even when they came from the same country. For example, the US State Department has a different interpretation from Brian Jenkins, a former US government advisor. Jenkins codifies terrorism as, “The use or threatened use of force designed to bring about political change” (Whittaker, 2001, p. 3). Whereas the US State Department defines terrorism as the, “Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetuated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience” (Whittaker, 2001, p. 3). These two definitions take on similar areas of terrorism but the state definition appears more official, accommodating more specific circumstances. There are many other conflicting definitions of terrorism circling the US system, all of which throws up confusion for both the public and senior officials dealing with terrorists. However, it could as easily be argued that the more definitions the world has, the easier it will be to pin point a violent act as terrorism.

Looking at the above statements, perhaps the only reason why Cooper’s definition cannot fully explain terrorism is because it lacks two key areas or words which show up in many others, that is violence and politics. The two go hand in hand when evaluating terrorism especially concerning traditional theories on terrorism which explains that one often leads to the other. This is all despite the title statement itself being subject to much change over time as Cooper states, “This definition evolved over some 25 years of teaching about the topic of terrorism in a university setting, and during that time, it has undergone a number of small refinements as experience has suggested” (Cooper, 2001, p. 883). Importantly however, in the critical evaluation of Cooper, the definition has shown through the cross referencing of other notions of terrorism, that it can certainly be used to describe varying types of terrorism and could run closely alongside many other definitions and theories. All this meaning that Cooper’s definition is easily justifiable as an evaluation of terrorism.

 

In order to truly assess Cooper’s claims however, they must be analysed in relation to a case study. The Iraq war broke out due to a reaction to the terrorist attack on September 11^th 2001 in New York. The twin towers of the World Trade Centre in New York were destroyed by Al Qaeda suicide bombers aboard two aeroplanes; it was believed that terrorist leaders such as Osama Bin Laden were responsible. The UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George W. Bush along with other allies agreed to join forces and invade Afghanistan for fear that they possessed weapons of mass destruction. “Testifying in front of the inquiry into the UK’s participation in the U.S.-led war against Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003, Blair said he had stated publicly that Iraq needed to be confronted over its ambitions to develop weapons of mass destruction” (CNN News, 2010). This war later spread into other parts of the Middle East including Pakistan. There are perhaps two instances of terrorism during this period which Cooper’s definition can cover. The first is obviously the malicious attacks on the UK and US. More significantly the world trade centre attacks on September 11^th but also the terrible London bombings in July 2005 where civilians were targeted on public transport. Over seven hundred people were injured during the London attacks with fifty two more killed (One India News, 2010). This would be an example of new terrorism, where death and destruction were the sole aims which Cooper defines as the ‘generation of massive fear’. The other instance of terrorism would be the relentless tactics being used by the Taliban in the war which followed and is still ongoing today. Hoffman, speaking of the Taliban, continues, “…once more is marshalling its forces to continue the struggle against the United States, which Osama Bin Laden formally declared thirteen years ago” (Hoffman, 2009, p. 1). Road-side bombs and suicide bombers have caused many western casualties over the years with the war proving very difficult for either side to win.

It is clear that the Iraq war and the actions preceding it can all be assessed as examples of terrorism in accordance with the title statement. This much is true but it could be interesting to look at the war from a different standpoint, where Cooper’s definition can take on different meanings. Perhaps it is the western allies who are also war criminals in the case of Iraq and are often seen to be committing terrorist acts themselves. Little is mentioned of the deaths of the largely innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan who are often caught up in the conflict. Considering Cooper’s definition, this could be seen as a state, or several more powerful states, aiming to ‘secure’ the control of another when initial fears of the possession of nuclear weapons was somewhat misguided. Schmid suggests that, “By placing narrowly defined acts of terrorism in the context of ‘war crimes’, the dilemma of attributing a given act of violence to the criminal or political sphere disappears” (Schmid, 1993, p. 13). It could be argued therefore that the Taliban is simply trying to defend its own territory by forcing allied troops out of the area despite its violent threats to the Western world. However even this, according to Cooper, is a form of terrorism and can be positioned within the definition when it talks of the ‘maintaining’ of control over other human beings.

Terrorism is an essentially contested concept and it has throughout the ages been difficult to define as it continuously proves today. There are no set rules when defining terrorism, with many definitions using alternative words even when coming to the same conclusions. There have been many attempts at it however, with most definitions covering broadly similar areas even if they do vary in emphasis on different issues. Cooper’s definition stands in my view as a very credible alternative to even those from government departments. It can be applied to varying aspects of terrorism including state terrorism and even war; it is comparable with state definitions, other non-state definitions but also new and traditional thoughts on terrorism. Cooper’s quote also offers up an interesting debate with regards to the War on Terror and how it can be viewed from differing perspectives. In conclusion, although there have been a vast amount of attempts to define terrorism, indeed it is often thought of as an impossibility, in my opinion Cooper’s definition stands up as well as any other.

Bibliography

Books

Hoffman. J (2009), Introduction to Political Theory, Second Edition, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Laqueur. W (2003), No End to War: Terrorism in the Twenty First Century, Google Books, Available at: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uXn6UYh9JUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false,

Schmid. A P (1993) Western Response to Terrorism, London: Frank Cass Publishers.

Whittaker. D J (2001) The Terrorism Reader, New York: Routledge Ltd.

Web Articles

CNN World (2010), Blair: No ‘covert’ deal with Bush over Iraq, available at: http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-29/world/england.iraq.blair.inquiry_1_john-chilcot-tony-blair-iraq?_s=PM:WORLD,

One India News (2010), July 7 2005 London bombing inquests to begin, available at: http://news.oneindia.in/2010/10/11/july7-2005-london-bombing-inquests-to-begin.html,

Journals

Cooper H. 2001, ‘The Problem of Definition Revisited’, Terrorism, pp.881-892.

Hoffman B. 2009, A Counterterrorism Strategy for the Obama Administration, Terrorism and Political Violence, 21 (3), p. 359, [online]. Available from: Taylor Francis Online. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09546550902950316,

Field A. 2009, ‘The ‘New Terrorism’: Revolution or Evolution?’, Politics Studies Review, 7, pp.195-207.

Luis de la Calle, 2011, ‘What We Talk About When We Talk About Terrorism’, Politics and Society, 39 (3), pp.451-472.

Schmid A P. 2004, ‘Frameworks for Conceptualising Terrorism’, Terrorism and Political Violence, 16 (2), pp.197-221.

Weinber L, 2004, ‘The Challenges of Conceptualizing Terrorism’, Terrorism and Political Violence, 16 (4), pp.777-794.

Theories of Policy Making

This was my first piece of written work at degree level and is still something in which I take great pride.

Which of the theories of decision-making within the policy-making process is the most persuasive?

Decision-making in politics is a highly controversial issue. There are four important methods within the policy-making field which all have positive and negative aspects, these are; rational actor model, incremental model, bureaucratic organisational model and belief system model. The basic policy process however is also split up into four main stages; initiation, formulation, implementation and evaluation. Although all the theories of decision making are distinct, all follow this simple pattern when various decisions are made on policy. Deciding which of the four theories of decision-making is most persuasive is simply a matter of opinion. In order to come up with a ‘rational’ answer, all the political and moral aspects will have to be considered before coming to a definitive conclusion.

The policy-making process includes four basic stages of operation before a government, or policy makers, can claim to have developed a feasible policy for which a party can follow. However, the process is not as simple as it might look to the public or press. Heywood states: “Policy process not only involves clusters of decisions, in the sense of a number of related decisions concerning a particular policy area, but also different kinds of decisions.” (Heywood, 2002, p.404). The ‘decision to make a decision’ is a first and crucial part of the process which leads to the first of the four main stages of the policy-making process, the ‘policy initiation’. This is where an issue first arises and becomes part of a policy agenda (Heywood, 2002). An issue could either come from a public disagreement or a press or media concern, indeed usually both. This is known as a concern arising from ‘below’, whereas an issue concerning a politician or a government agency would come from ‘above’. The ‘policy formulation’ stage is all about defining specifically the policy a party wishes to implement. Policy-makers have to take a step back and look at both the short and long-term consequences of their actions. This relates to the theory of ‘forecasting’ and to the idea that policies at this stage are easily reinterpreted by peers. The main concern for a public body at this stage, which may have raised the issue in the first place, would be whether the government has fully understood their point of view and actions they feel need to be taken. Of course particularly when taking into account recent controversy over politician’s expenses, the public and press are currently unlikely to fully trust any government be it considered ‘open’ or not. Their main fear would be that a government will simply implement a policy to benefit themselves. Heywood argues: “Although public opinion and the concerns of bodies such as the media, political parties and interest groups are likely to influence objective setting, there is of course, no guarantee that the priorities identified by priority formulators will be the same as those advanced by policy initiators.” (Heywood, 2002, p.406). The third stage, the implementing of policy, follows the idea of the ‘perfect’ implementation. It has been argued that in order to achieve this goal a policy needs; perfect obedience or perfect control, perfect information, perfect communication and perfect coordination (Hood, 1976). The final point of the policy-making process is the evaluation stage. As with all the four stages, it is relatively self-explanatory but the main issue is the idea of appropriate feedback. After considering ‘policy feedback’ a policy-making body may choose to go back to the formulation stage in order to finalise some amendments. Heywood’s thoughts on the evaluation process also include, “decisions being made about the maintenance, succession or termination of the policy in question.” (Heywood, 2002, p.409).

In accordance to the policy-making process there are, as mentioned, four decision-making models which operate within it. The first of the four, the rational actor model is just that, rational and more logical than any of its alternatives. This stems from the concept of utilitarianism and the notion of the ‘economic man’, which draws on the idea that people are self-interested, deciding which option would most likely maximise their pleasure and minimise pain. Another reason the rational actor model could be seen as more logical is because it sets out its goals and aims first, which means more radical or bold decisions have to be made in order to achieve them. The means of then achieving a goal or objective are evaluated in terms of their reliability, costs and effectiveness before coming to a decision. The rational actor model has, along with other models, been analysed deeply by Graham T. Allison who uses the case study of the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. After President Kennedy did not back up the ‘Bay of Pigs Invasion’ the soviets were on the front foot. According to Graham T. Allison’s study, ‘Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis’, it is thought that Kennedy and his advisors used a version of the rational actor model to plot there next move. After considering a range of options, in the end they decided on a blockade of Cuba to force the next move on the soviets. This was a bold move but one which brought, according to Heywood, a decision made through a selection of the means most likely to secure the desired end (Heywood, 2002). Perhaps the most persuasive factor of this model to a policy-making body is that it is how the percentage of people feels decisions should be made in politics and indeed in other walks of life. However, this argument is often countered by those who claim that while the model is clearly rational; perhaps the people making the decision are not i.e. politicians, currently not the most trustworthy group of professionals.

The incremental approach to decision making is widely regarded as being more realistic, both in terms of the idea itself but also of what actually goes on in politics today. It is considered by many as a Conservative method as befits their stereotypical ideological stance that is resistant to change. Of course this is not entirely true, the Conservative party has been known to change its stance, particularly today with regards to David Cameron’s more modern outlook. As was with Barack Obama, he is campaigning on a need specifically for ‘change’. Despite this thought, the traditional Conservative ideology can accept change and it does so with a certain degree of caution; thus fitting the incremental model perfectly. Heywood states that the Conservatives had, “accepted change, or change in order to conserve.” (Heywood, 2004, p.138). Furthermore the incremental model, instead of making big brash policy decisions (like the rational actor model), would keep with the previous policy but perhaps with a few amendments or ‘adjustments’ depending on circumstance. This is seen as safer, more realistically logical and ultimately conservative. Although recently there has been evidence that the Labour party has adopted this method of decision-making on its drug policy when, in January 2009, they upgraded cannabis to class B. Professor David Nutt was then sacked after stating that cannabis was less harmful than alcohol, further evidence to suggest that small adjustments to policy can have a big impact whether it be positive or negative. The benefits of adopting this theory of decision-making are that it is, particularly in a pluralist democracy, clearly more flexible and responsive according to the theory of ‘muddling through’ (Lindblom 1959). Critics of the system claim it is based too securely around a Conservative form of government, which to many is a criticism in itself and also that it lacks innovation with regards to policy solutions. Other, less partisan, criticisms centre on the fact that the model is inherently a short term solution to decision-making without looking at the long-term consequences in the future. Also, small policy changes implies that the decision being taken is small and insignificant thus raising issues that decisions within a policy-making process could be ill-informed with individuals lacking the adequate information required.

The bureaucratic organization model differs from the previous two decision making models in that it is more aware of the need to have a solid policy-making structure in order for it to be successful. Both the incremental and rational actor models pay no attention to this point. The bureaucratic organizational models dwell on the impact made upon large organizations as a result of a policy changing decision. Impact such as those on basic ideological values, assumptions and regular patterns of behaviour which exist in any large organization (Heywood, 2002). Instead this decision-making model states that decisions in policy making should be made to reflect the core values of an organization, not conflict against them. Furthermore any policy changes should be done so with the appropriate degree of appreciation for the internal organizational factors. While this model may operate in accordance to the majority of personnel in an organization, it also has a number of drawbacks. Chief among which is the fact that political leadership becomes almost obsolete, or not needed, in the sense that it would be the consensus of an organization which in the end would ultimately make a decision. Without leadership ‘from above’, critical decisions could become few and far between. Furthermore, the model goes against national interest in favour of departmental interest, something which would not appeal to the electorate. Again, in accordance to Graham T. Allison’s theory, President Kennedy’s actions in the Cuban Missile Crisis could have been interpreted differently by applying the bureaucratic organization model as opposed to the rational actor. Instead of looking at an array of options before making a decision, Kennedy would have chosen the first idea which was considered adequate as opposed to waiting for the optimal solution, in the name of saving time.

The belief system model draws on the ideological values of a policy-making body or indeed, of an individual. The model sets out three levels of ideological strength. The first being ‘deep core ideological values’ which are our fundamental moral principles, the second being our ‘near core values’ which indicate our policy preferences and finally our ‘secondary beliefs’, which influence our views on policy implementation. An example of when ideological values matter most is perhaps during Prime Minister’s question time. As the two major parties battle for the supremacy of the house through jeering and shouting, perhaps the only thing separating them is their ideological values. Under the belief system model, ideological values are seen as the ‘glue’ of political decision-making. Though this theory of decision-making would make policy easy to decipher, it is not a feasible or commonly used method on which to formulate policy. Its level of persuasiveness is low to say the least, particularly to a highly political policy-making body. An advocator of the belief system model would counter that argument by involving political culture as opposed to an individual’s ideology. Moran claims that political culture, “consists of more than attitudes to political authority or beliefs about the purpose of government; it encompasses the political practices and ceremonials of a community” (Moran, 1989, p.34).

Within the policy-making process, political decisions are hugely important if a government wishes to be successful. Deciding upon which is the best or the most persuasive is a difficult question. If a government were to decide upon the use of one of the four theories, it would like to evaluate all of them for their strengths, weaknesses and the reality of implementing such a model into the party line. The first to be brushed aside would be the belief system model as it is too simplistic to suggest that ideology is all that matters, particularly in decision making. The idea that politics is making progress, in appealing to all in society, would be lost thus deeming the belief system model a backward step. The bureaucratic organization model would also falter. While few want to see the return of a dictatorship, this model seems to satisfy only the interests of those on the inside, the public voters would not approve. In my opinion, were a government to be persuaded by just one of the decision making models, it would be the incremental model. A bold decision taken in light of using the rational actor model could be seen as the right way forward to many, particularly those who place themselves on the left of the ideological spectrum. However, a bold decision implies that there is a certain element of risk involved. Taking a wrong turn because of an irrational thought or political leaning, especially in today’s economic climate, could result in disaster.

Bibliography

Andrew Heywood, (2002), Politics, Second Edition, Hampshire: Palgrave Foundations.

Andrew Heywood, (2004), Political Theory An Introduction, Third Edition, Hampshire: Palgrave Foundations.

Michael Moran, (1989), Politics and Society in Britain an Introduction, Second Edition, London: The Macmillan Press Ltd.

C Hood, (1976), The Limits of Administration, London: John Wiley.

C Lindblom, (1959), ‘The Science of Muddling Through’, Public Administration Review, vol. 19, pp. 79-88.

Graham T. Allison, (1999), Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, Second Edition, Longman.

The American Presidency

A piece I wrote analysing the power of the American President.

Has the office of the American President has become too powerful?

The office of the President is an area of American politics which has come under much scrutiny and question in the past and equally so today. The President’s powers are often misunderstood as being either too powerful or in some cases too weak. As the President is in sole charge of arguably the world’s greatest superpower, it could be considered that he or she is the world’s most powerful political and economic figure. However, when looking deeper into the specific powers of the presidency and the limits imposed on it by the American Constitution, these thoughts are easily contested. The relative strengths and weaknesses of the President can be assessed by comparing the US system with that of the UK and by looking at the President’s excessive exposure in the media. All these major factors and more will be assessed, before coming to a definitive conclusion.

When looking into the powers of the American Presidency, a case can easily be made that the President is in fact, weak. On the global front, the President of America is seen as one of the single most influential figures in the whole world. Domestically however, there have been many examples where Presidents, or any American politicians or governors, have failed to deliver their promises. In some cases the fault has not been with the leadership but simply the state of the economy or other domestic affairs. Perhaps ironically, the current President Barack Obama is seen at the moment to be failing to deliver his pre-election promises. Ironic because, prior to the 2008 election, Barack Obama seemed to have a wealth of support from all across the political spectrum and seemed to attract the world’s attention as he portrayed a new way forward for America. Leslie writes, “Obama was a vivid embodiment of difference at a time when the country needed something new” (Leslie, 2009, p.21). There were even those from the Republican party of who showed support, they became known as the ‘Obamacans’. Today he is much criticised and recently in the mid-term elections, lost control of the House of Congress to the Republican Party. In February 2009, he signed the ‘American recovery and reinvestment act’, a policy which aimed to help the ever declining economy which has seen many parts of the world plummet into recession. Looking at the election results, this clearly failed to have any effect. Those supporting Obama believe that, following the mid-term elections, one of the reasons for failure was because not enough Americans had seen any changes in the economy. This brings up perhaps the most important factor when arguing for this case. Barack Obama has as much power vested to him as any other previous President. He however, has failed to utilise them to its fullest effect. Ryan Lizza, writing in ‘The New Yorker’ sums up the critical view of Obama and his Presidency so far, when he says,”[Obama] campaigns on reforming a broken political process, yet he has always played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to exist” (Lizza, 2010).

It could therefore be argued that Obama has not taken significant enough steps to ensure an effective and successful reform of the economic situation. Similar thoughts could also be applied to President Herbert Hoover, who is criticised for his poor handling of the Wall Street Crash of 1929. Bowles says of Hoover, “Herbert Hoover was a moderate, but the Democratic landslide of 1932 swept him from the White House” (Bowles, 1993, p.26). Hoover’s successor Franklin Delano Roosevelt, had great success in dealing with the bad economic situation and used his Presidential powers to good effect. Following the turmoil of the Wall Street crash, he is credited as one of the greatest American presidents of all time, thanks largely to a reforming policy that was both radical and inspiring, the New Deal. Williams says, “In his inauguration speech of 1933 Roosevelt pledged ‘a new deal for the American people’. Since then his proposals for economic recovery have been known as the New Deal. On assuming office Roosevelt summoned Congress on 9^th March and it sat for ‘100 days’ in order to enact the provisions of the New Deal” (Williams, 1998, p.20). This shows what can be achieved by a President willing to use all his authority necessary to move the economy forward.

At this time the Presidency could have been seen to be out growing the limits set upon it by the Founding Fathers of the constitution. The Presidency was beginning to dominate Congress, something which the Founding Fathers feared. Though despite the risk of a tyrannical leader, they accepted that to get things done; one sole figure needed ultimate authority. Walt gives his account of the Founding Fathers, “For Americans, the nation’s rise to world power is often portrayed as a direct result of the political genius of the Founding Fathers” (Walt, 2005, p.171). In order to control the Presidency, the Founding Fathers designed a doctrine of a Separation of Powers which divided the government into three parts, the Legislature, the Judiciary and the Executive. American politics then is often seen as simply a notion of compromise between the Presidency and Congress, although Roosevelt’s dominant and extended time in office was in exceptional circumstances.

Furthermore, even today the President can be seen as too powerful, not only because of the single powers vested in him but also by an over exposure in the media. The media drives politics and without it, many successful presidential campaigns would have been severely affected. Obama is perhaps the best example of this. Through the media he was able to construct a fantastic campaign, with television channels broadcasting a thirty minute advertisement for his case. Leslie goes on, “He became a cultural phenomenon in a way few politicians ever do, adorning magazine covers, T-shirts and websites before he’d even announced his candidacy” (Leslie, 2009, p.21). As the media industry grows, politics becomes far more accessible to the public thus further increasing a President’s impact and influence over the electorate. Often the President becomes the figurehead of American politics on the world stage, casting aside other issues.

It is true also that the President does have a vast array of powers consigned to him by the US constitution. He or she can have massive influence in all three branches of the American government, particularly in the legislature. Although the President is not seated in Congress, and cannot directly enforce legislation, the President does of course have influence aplenty over his or her party. This becomes especially useful if the Presidential party has a majority in Congress. He can then also outline legislative proposals in his State of Union Address, which can be very beneficial, giving the President indirect power over the legislature. In the twentieth century Presidents have used this provision to expand the legislative role of the presidency (Williams, 1998). It is the power of veto however, which is considered to be one of the most useful legislative powers the President has. Indeed, Roosevelt used this tactic six hundred and thirty five times in his time as President, further proof either that a truly powerful Presidency can exist or simply that politics were much more unstable at the time.

Clearly, where the President wields most power is within the Executive as, to a point, he is the sole executive figure. He does also however, have a presidential cabinet of which the members are chosen, thereby removed from congress if they were previously members and can be consulted on any important issues the president has. Unlike in the UK though, the president has full control over his or her cabinet and can overrule its decisions. The cabinet members then are seen merely as close advisors in their respective quarters and policy is rarely discussed. Bowles states, “Of all the politicians who sit around the table in the White House Cabinet room, only the President has an electoral base” (Bowles, 1993, p.103). Therefore, in contrast to UK cabinet politics, there is no notion of a collective responsibility. Crucially then, the President can make big decisions without cabinet approval. This also means that he has sole control over the armed forces and is deemed the Commander in Chief. This war power gives the President the authority to command US armed forces (Williams, 1998). In times of war the President ultimately has control over military strategy and foreign policy which could lead to crucial treaty negotiations. The President also has significant powers within the Judiciary as he can appoint federal judges to both the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. This would not be without purpose, as this enables the President to shape the ideological nature of the Judiciary to his benefit. Williams outlines a way in which the President can therefore gain power over the constitution, “The Supreme Court is able to review the work of the other branches of government and, in so doing, becomes the interpreter of the Constitution” (Williams, 1998, p.95).

However, the President falls victim to many constitutional and congressional restrictions. The power of the Presidency can easily be questioned and is often not as powerful as first perceived. Although he has a crucial role to play in all three branches of government, the office of the American President has many checks and balances on it which can limit its role. In the Judiciary for example, the Presidents appointments first have to be ratified by the Senate before it can become official. Furthermore a court can damage a President and negate a particular activity (Watts, 2005). In the legislature, it is Congress which proposes and passes bills not the President. Even the Presidential Veto can be overridden by a two-thirds majority in Congress. Watts says, “The President needs congressional support, and in the more assertive mood of Congress in recent years’ incumbents have found this difficult to achieve even with their own party in control” (Watts, 2005, p.82). The Presidents executive powers are not complete either. Although the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, he cannot declare war without the approval of Congress nor can he sign treaties without the Senate’s approval. Perhaps the most crucial weakness the President has is that he can be impeached and ultimately removed from office. The impeachment process must be brought by a majority vote in the House of Representatives (Williams, 1998). This has happened on two relatively recent occasions, in 1868 though Andrew Johnson was acquitted by the Senate and in 1974 when Richard Nixon resigned, allowing the impeachment process to stop (Williams, 1998). So although the President is powerful and is intended to be, he or she is relatively well restricted by Congress. This is exactly the type of framework the Founding Fathers intended to set out.

To conclude, many see the President of the United States of America as perhaps the most powerful single figure in world politics. The office of the President has many powers on the global front and much authority over other countries and its own. Furthermore, the President has many significant influences in the three branches of government, the Judiciary, the Legislature and of course the Executive. This is the way the Founding fathers intended the powers of the President to be. It could be argued however, that on many occasions the office of the American President has overreached its power and has begun to dominate, not just congress, but the media and other global affairs. In my opinion though, the Presidency is far too restricted by the vision the Founding Fathers set out in the constitution. There are a series of checks and balances on his political powers and although the media has sometimes meant the President is allowed much influence, this is a far cry from a dictatorship or authoritarian rule. The media can both make or break politicians based on their performance and as such, the Presidents control is only as good as he or she can justify. Ultimately the office of the American Presidency is not too powerful as the American Constitution is sovereign.

Bibliography

Nigel Bowles, (1993), The Government and Politics of The United States, Hampshire: THE MACMILLAN PRESS LTD.

Ian Leslie, (2009), To Be President, London: Politico’s Publishing.

Ryan Lizza, (2010), The Political Scene: Making It [Online], Available at: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=15

Stephen M. Walt, (2005), Taming American Power, First Edition, London: W. W. Norton & Company Ltd.

Duncan Watts, (2005), Understanding American Government and Politics, Second Edition, Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Andy Williams, (1998), US Government & Politics, Second Edition, Oxford: Heinemann Educational Publishers.