A head of state is a public persona that embodies the legitimacy and unity of a state. The powers vested in the person depend on the separation of powers and how the leader is elected. Article 2 of the American constitution names the president as the head of both states and government and is the commander in chief of the armed forces. President Joe Biden is the head of state and government and enjoys powers vested to him by article 2 of the constitution. America is a democratic country where a president is elected through the electoral colleges, which were instituted to ensure that the voices of all the people were heard (Howell 43). A head of state is the highest persona in a sovereign state, and the buck stops at the office. If the president is the head of state, s/he serves to symbolize the country’s sovereignty and unity both abroad and at home. The president is the most influential public official in a country because the constitution gives the head of state powers to make decisions on behalf of the country.
Comparing the Role of the President and Head of states internationally
The President of the United States of America is mandated by article 2 of the constitution to execute all the laws and policies made by congress. The head of state in the USA has appointed fifteen executive cabinets to take care of different aspects of the country’s issues. With the help of the cabinet, the president conducts the day-to-day duties of the country. The federal departments are united by other public bodies and agencies like regulatory bodies to ensure that the promises made to the people during the campaign period are fulfilled through implementing the law. As the commander in chief, the president ensures that the country is safe and protected from external and internal forces (Howell 73). The head of state can declare wars on other nations or groups that threaten the country. The president acts as the chief diplomat and fudges relationships with other nations. For example, if the country produces numerous agricultural produce, the president solicits markets from other nations to ensure that the produce from the country is sold out.
The president is the chief legislator who ensures that the most appropriate policies are signed into law. For example, all the bills discussed in congress must be signed into law by the head of state. As a chief diplomat, the president enters into agreements with other nations on behalf of the country. Making treaties and democratic relationships with other nations is a decision only the head of state can take. The president further ensures that the rule of law leads the people by ensuring that the judges are appointed to dispense justice to the people. There are, however, restrictions on the president’s power, and he cannot make decisions on some issues without the approval; of the senate (Tridimas 498). For example, the president cannot make laws, declare war or decide how money is spent. However, the head of state can use the political party’s influence to pass bills and support the president with their approval. However, the role of the head of state may be compared to the heads of state in other nations to determine the similarities and differences.
There are presidential systems in other nations, such as India and the United Kingdom, where the president has ceremonial powers. In contrast, the head of government performs all the other responsibilities. In other nations, such as Morocco, the president has substantial powers but is the dejure head of government (Tridimas 456). In countries where the head of state is not the head of government, there is a head of government who runs the day-to-day running of the government.
India
India has both a head of state and a head of state and different powers enshrined by the constitution. The main difference between the head of state in India and the USA is that the US president has absolute powers to execute functions. In contrast, the Indian president is a ceremonial position with limited powers, and most active roles are performed by the prime minister. Article sixty of the Indian constitution gives the president the power to appoint judges (Bono 140). However, the office is ceremonial, and it is the prime minister who runs the day-to-day affairs of the government. The only difference between the president of the US and India is the power to run the government. However, they are both elected similarly using the electoral colleges. The US president has more powers compared to the Indian president.
United Kingdom
The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarch where the king is the head of state and represents the nation in international affairs. The king is, however, not the head of government since the prime minister is in charge of the day-to-day running of the government and making decisions on behalf of the citizens. The roles of the king or queen are limited to the sovereignty of a country and do not interfere with the day-to-day running of the government. The main difference is the mode of an election, where the president is elected using the Electoral College (Tridimas 456). On the other hand, the constitutional monarch is hereditary and is transmitted from one family member to another, commonly regarded as the royal family. Most of the monarch powers are ceremonial and cannot make decisions on the running of the government. The UK form of leadership is less effective compared to the USA.
Morocco
Morocco has a bicameral parliamentary system where the prime minister is the head of government. The politics of Morocco operate in the framework of both a democracy and a monarch. The executive powers in Morocco are practiced by the head of government, the prime minister. The executive powers of hiring cabinet members and other cabinet members lie in the prime minister’s jurisdiction. The king appoints a president in the kingdom of Morocco from the major party in the parliament (Bono 140). Therefore, the president’s roles are limited; he cannot make decisions on behalf of the people and depends on the king and the parliament to approve the ideologies and proposals made. Compared to the USA, the head of state is less effective in delivering effective service to the people.
Effectiveness of the other Leadership
The selected countries represent different forms of leadership where the head of state has limited powers based on the country’s governance system. The given difference is based on the mode of election and the powers bestowed. The American democracy is the most effective as the president is both the head of state and government and the centralization of power increases efficiency. If the head of state is different from the head of government, a conflict between the two leaders may lead to anarchy. Of the selected countries with a monarch and a semi-parliamentary system, the decisions to govern the government are decentralized, and efficiency may not be achieved in the discourse. Rapid response is what makes American democracy more effective compared to other forms of government. Since a president in the USA is elected by the Electoral College, representing the powers of all the people, it is easier to make a quick decision to ensure the people are taken care of at all times. The other forms of democracy depend on the consent of other arms of government for assistance.
Conclusion
The head of state is the most robust personality in a sovereign country and signifies the unity and legitimacy of a country. However, other heads of state are in different countries and leaderships internationally. The United Kingdom, India, and Morocco are some countries selected to compare the effectiveness of the head of state. Unlike the USA, other countries have the head of state either inheriting the office or being appointed by a king. Despite differences, American democracy is more effective as the powers vested in the president as the head of state and government help increase efficiency.
Work Cited
Bono, Irene. “Rescuing Biography from the Nation: Discrete Perspectives on Political Change in Morocco.” Methodological Approaches to Societies in Transformation: How to Make Sense of Change 2021, pp. 139–163.
Howell, William G., and Terry M. Moe. “Presidents, populism, and the crisis of democracy.” Presidents, Populism, and the Crisis of Democracy. University of Chicago Press, 2020.
Tridimas, George. “Constitutional monarchy as power sharing.” Constitutional Political Economy, Vol. 32, no. 4, 2021, pp. 431–461.
