Relation between political and permanent executive

The executive branch of the government consists of two branches:

1. Political executive, 
2. Permanent executive.

• The political executive exercises power by virtue of its elections and the constitutional position. Theoretically, they derive power from the people. The permanent executive derives its strength partly from its administrative positions but largely from its technical expertise. 
• As the political executive represents the people and modern governments are based on the concept of popular sovereignty, the permanent executive is subordinated to the political executive. 

In fact, in the parliamentary system of government, the political executive is responsible to the legislature which in turn is accountable to the people. In this arrangement, there is also judiciary to ensure that the governance is based on the constitutional provisions on the one hand and the executive, both political and permanent, confirm and enforce the laws passed by the legislatures without violating their spirit.

What is the difference between them?
The basic distinction between the political executive and the permanent is rooted in the concept of policy-administration dichotomy. Woodrow Wilson, in 1887, made a distinction between politics and administration in his paper The Study of Administration. He considered politics as concerned with policy formulation which sets tasks for administration. The administration was said to be concerned with the execution of policies which is the domain of career civil servants. Policy making is the function of popularly elected representatives. This dichotomy implies that the policy process is entirely different from its implementation.

• The policy is supposed to be the primary function of politics and the politics, in turn, are supposed to be rooted in an ideological structure. Ideology is a set of priorities that a given political party prefers from the available alternatives to solve different problems that people of a society confront. The difference between one political party and the other is based on the differences in preferences.
• On the contrary, the permanent executive deals with the collection of factual information about the concrete situation. It furnishes the information necessary for the policy outcome. Once the policy is made, the administration or the permanent executive needs to initiate action and take all the measures to accomplish the tasks that the policy sets for the administrative machinery. The permanent executive is expected to equip itself with the necessary technical and managerial expertise both to administer people and things. As they are permanent they also possess the experience with the help of which the pitfalls can be avoided and the goals realised with economy and efficiency.

Challenges regarding their roles
There have been arguments for and against such a theoretical position. While theoretically, such a separation is conceivable, it is argued, operationally it poses a number of problems.

1. There is a question about the separation of facts and values: when the permanent executive furnishes the factual information, does it not get mixed up with their values. Is it possible for the individuals to separate their values from the facts that they collect? 
2. Then it is asked, whether the permanent executives implement the policies if they do not subscribe to those preferences? In other words, how can any individual implement a programme which he does not subscribe to? 
3. Further is it correct to believe that the members of the permanent executive do not have value preference? 

These questions are not discussed in detail. However, those who maintain that dichotomy is feasible, argue that policy-preferences involve more of values and political processes while the administrative process involves more of technical details and facts and less of values. It would not be possible for the same agency to do both the functions simultaneously with economy and efficiency. The separation of these two functions is not only theoretically desirable but also operationally essential.

PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE RELATIONSHIP

1. Norm of neutrality: The norm of neutrality assumes three conditions: 1) changing of political parties in power, 2) meritorious bureaucracy; 3) permanent bureaucracy. The recruitment of the personnel on a permanent basis in a changing political climate calls for the neutrality of the permanent members. This means the members are not supposed to commit themselves to any political values. They are expected to cooperate and assist any party in power irrespective of the political preferences.
2. Norm of anonymity: The second principle anonymity flows from the norm of neutrality. The principle of anonymity emphasises that permanent executive works from behind the screen. In other words, they should avoid public gaze. This implies that the political-executive takes the total responsibility for omissions and commissions. The executive takes the.credit for the achievements and discredit for the failures. The people through electoral mechanism punish or reward the political executive or the political party that the executive represents. The permanent executive has to work under the overall guidance and direction of the political executive. The political executive will have all the powers not only to extract work from the permanent executive but reward or punish them. Under this arrangement, the pattern of accountability is so distributed that while the political executive is solely accountable to the people, the permanent executive is also accountable to the political executive. It is precisely the reason why anonymity has come to be considered as one of the governing norms of political-permanent executive relationship.

Challenges

The discussion on these two norms can raise the question: how do we reconcile these two norms? For while the first norm advocates neutrality, the second advocates accountability. 

• If the permanent executive is totally accountable to the political executive, can the latter afford to be neutral? If it means that they should be committed to the political executive in power, is it possible for the permanent executive to go on changing its commitment from the regime to the regime? 
• Otherwise, the members of the permanent executive should maintain neutrality in such a way that they may even grow indifferent to all the regimes. However, it is assumed that technical and managerial skills are not political. It is often noted that Lenin welcomed Taylorism which was the product of industrial development in America.The skills and the technical knowledge which are assumed to be non-political can be used by any political party in power. 

AREAS OF COOPERATION AND CONFLICT 

This separation has certain built-in advantages and strengths.

• The political executive devotes their time for political mobilisation of the masses and also for the political education of the masses. In addition to mobilising the masses, they can formulate the value preferences by comprehending the popular moods and changing aspirations. They can also discuss various alternatives at a fairly higher level. 
• The permanent executive can continuously evaluate its own field-experience and draw meaningful lessons for subsequent programmes. They can also monitor various schemes at day-to-day or step level. They can also devote greater time to improve their own managerial and technical skills for better and effective realisation of the goals. 
• Thus, this separation of functions can lead to the division of labour which in turn can contribute to a higher level of efficiency in the society.

There are several reasons for cooperation between these two executives becoming less. The following are some of the important reasons for this deteriorating situation.

1. Firstly, the cooperation between the political and permanent executive depends upon the societal consensus on the goals pursued. This is the advantage of some of the western capitalist societies where there is considerable consensus on the goals of development. There is also a certain degree of homogeneity in the societal formations. This gives an added advantage to those systems. In other words, the conditions existing in the society provide the base for a better pattern of relationship between the political and permanent executive. In the third world societies like India where the consensus on development goals has not yet been achieved, there are bound to be certain problems. The heterogeneity of the society is shared by both the political and the permanent executives. The political executives, in the absence of consensus on development and absence of socio-political homogeneity, are subjected to political uncertainty. The absence of long-range view of the society weakens the ideological base.This, in turn, leads to a lot of ambiguity in policy preferences. The leads to what has come to be popularly known as adhocism. Adhocism cannot provide direction to the permanent executive. On the contrary political processes start occupying even the technical and managerial space. This leads to narrowing down of the distinction between the political executive and permanent executive. This can strain the relationship.
2. Secondly, the conflict between these two executives partly emanates from the historical process and partly from the socio-economic development. Historically speaking the permanent executive during the colonial period not only performed the administrative role but political too. In fact, during the colonial phase, these two functions converged to a point that to make a distinction between the two would be difficult. It was the anti-colonial movement, aiming at political power for elected representatives, which led to the demarcation of the roles. While the freedom movement presented the aspirations of the people, the bureaucracy appeared as a counter-force.Thus the political elite had their own doubts and suspicion. The bureaucratic elite, deeply rooted in the colonial administrative culture, had an exaggerated view of themselves. They suffered from ego and arrogance. The achievement of freedom should have resulted in redesigning the whole bureaucratic system so as to make them fit to perform the new tasks. But the political elite hesitated to recast the system.With the result, the bureaucracy which was used by the colonial masters against the freedom fighters was the very same instrument which the elite of Independent India had to depend upon. The differences embedded in historical process rendered cordiality between the two branches a bit difficult.
3. Thirdly, there is another dimension which leads to conflict. The social origins of the political and administrative elite in India do present a difference. While both the elites do not come from the large masses, they differ in their middle-class origins. The political elite has got to be relatively more heterogeneous than the middle and higher level administrative functionaries. While a bulk of the members of the political executive, particularly at the state level, have been drawn from the rural and agricultural background, the top and middle-level administrators are from the urban middle and upper middle classes. These differences are manifest in their style of living, mode of communication, ways of looking at things and their mannerisms. Thus the differences get preserved and accentuated. Although the character of bureaucracy has been changing, it has been changing rather slowly. The nature of political elite is also undergoing change. Yet one cannot say that they are comparable or identical. In other words, the urban, industrial middle class on the one hand and rural agrarian upper or middle strata on the other dominate the permanent and political executives respectively. The relationships are also partly shaped by these factors.
4. Fourthly, there are also institutional mechanisms which accentuate or widen the areas of conflict. The political institutions normally are empowered with greater discretion and flexibility. They have to be relatively more responsive as they are in constant touch with the social system. The political executive, in a parliamentary system of government, takes even the legislature for granted. In a number of instances, they take the decisions to the legislature or Parliament only for ratification. In fact in the parliamentary form of government, the initiative does not rest with the legislature. The whole process is reduced to either the ratification or rejection of what has been brought before the legislative houses. Thus the political executive has become quite strong. In fact, it is observed that the parliamentary governments over a period of time have become the cabinet system of governments which in turn are turning into prime ministerial governments. Thus the executive branch has appropriated the powers of the legislative organs and became quite powerful. With this enormous power, they want the matters to move faster. They feel no constraints in the exercise of power. The permanent executive has also gained greater power by virtue of being an integral part of the executive branch of the government. However, due to the long colonial background and the rules and regulations and established procedures, the permanent executive tends to be less flexible. They also do not appreciate the political expediency. For them, precedent is very important. The very nature of the institution is such that their authority is located in the law. As a result, they do not feel enthusiastic about experiments and innovations. The political executive does attempt to change these institutions through administrative reforms.There are a number of instances to show that the permanent executives do not welcome the reforms. In fact, at the first instance, they try to hold back the reform measures. The strong habit of clinging to the rules and regulations continue to influence their approach. Thus the conflict arises between flexibility and rigidity expediency and experience purpose and the process.

Conclusion

In developing countries like India where there is a scarcity of resources and intense competition for those limited resources, the political executive is subjected to enormous pressure. The impact of the pressure group on the administration shall be discussed in the Unit on Pressure Groups. The political executive, in turn, puts pressure on the bureaucracy. In a number of cases, the tendency is to violate the norms which they themselves formulate. The norms become necessary for lawful governance but pressures are built in the scarce situation. As a result, the permanent executive is pressurised to violate the norms and the other rules and procedures. They resist these trends as they are rooted in the rigid rules and regulations. This gives rise to tensions. A section of them may make compromises. This process may end up in public offices being used for private purposes. This may land these officers in various controversies and sometimes enquiries etc. These are some of the important reasons that had given rise to a number of tensions in the relationship within the executive branch of the government.