Democracy and executive power

Abstract

Shallow lakes, it is said, tend to exist in one of two stable states: turbid and murky, or clear with abundant plantlife. And while lakes can shift between these two states, this often requires a greater change in external conditions, a greater shove, than might be expected. This is down to the ecological concept of hysteresis: the idea that making a change to the state of a system can depend on how it got there. The status quo can be favoured; and it can be much harder to shift away from the current state than to stick on the same path. ‘Democracy and Executive Power’ presents a case for a shift away from the status quo – for reform and improvement in the mechanisms that provide public accountability in executive decision-making. Rose-Ackerman’s analysis is based on four case-study countries – the US, the UK, Germany and France – but she applies her conclusions more broadly, in particular drawing attention to lessons that can be learnt both from and for Eastern European and South American experiences. Her core argument is that executive decision-making, as an unavoidable and significant component of modern governance, must align itself with democratic principles (most importantly accountability) and, to a lesser extent, must be attuned to expert input. The book displays the challenges in shifting the status quo – both in terms of the trajectory of a specific executive decision and in terms of the institutional structures that deliver public accountability – evoking the greater shove needed to move the shallow lake from murky to clear. Rose-Ackerman’s approach to executive power is both pragmatic and profound: the range of powers available to government departments and executive agencies to both set generally applicable rules and to make specific decisions with legal effects are here to stay. Attempts to diminish them are therefore misled and likely to have the (perhaps unintended) consequence of a reduction in democratic oversight. But the range of these powers is in democratic tension with the insufficiency of ‘ballot box democracy’: people seldom vote in national elections based on the approach the government will take to (eg) local development plans or particular food safety rules, no matter how important these issues are to them. And even if they did, general elections are neither frequent nor nuanced enough to transmit these views to decision-makers. This creates problems for