The Federalist 70

The Federalist 70

The executive has previously been defined as a dominant constituent of the government. The executive is identified as the government because of its power to implement the laws passed in government. In broad, it is the arm of government that meets all functionaries that are part of the execution of policies that run the administration. The type of government that is chosen to guide the government is, therefore, as critical as the leaders themselves. The government is as good as it is made to appear by the people that lead and govern it. There is no better way to state that an unstable executive is just another way of having a corrupt government. The government will indefinably be what the leaders advocate it to be. These are the reasons why it is only fit to have a government that is well on its feet and not one that is feeble and dwindling because of instability with its leaders.

The Federalist 70 argues all reasonable men will, without doubt, agree to the need of an energetic executive. An active executive must include unity as a force of its government among the other four sources, which include adequate provision and availability of competent powers. These ingredients are the most important in any stable executive leadership office. But in the republicans, the two fundamental values are a due sense of dependence on the people and responsibility.  However, with the two arguments it is not clear which is the preferred form of government. Do people prefer to have one significant leader to rule over others, or should there be a form of a society that sits down and makes the rules and discusses how the same established standards should be executed? According to the Federalist 70 article, unity is conducive to an energetic executive without dispute, and it can be supported by the fact that the decisions made by an individual will be of a much-improved manner than that of a significant number of leaders.

As the number of leaders increases, so does the credibility of the qualities be reduced. The above reveals that it is pro one leader as opposed to having more than one leader to rule and govern because, with an increased number of leaders, the level of credibility of a leader diminishes. That unity may be destroyed if either the power is given to two or more magistrates of equal authority or if it is vested solely on one man. Giving all control to one person is welcoming the leadership of a dictator — the latter, which is where power is vested to two or more magistrates but of equal authority. Unity is destroyed when you have two or more people of the same jurisdiction have been given the power because there are high chances to have a difference in opinion. Each individual will want to be better than the other and have their ideas viewed as better than the other. The different beliefs lead to leadership wrangles to win over the position and that way; unity is no longer a virtue that they want to keep, so they get to in over the other.

Looking at the Roman leadership position, their history records several instances of mischief between the Consuls and the Military tribunes. There are no advantages from the plurality of the magistrates who were at times substituted for the Consuls. The consuls who were generally chosen out of the former bodies of government were commonly united by their individual interests that they had in their defense. It was until the Roman arms of the republic considered extending its empire that it divided its administration between themselves. One lot remained and governed the city at Rome, and the other took command in other distant provinces. This had a significant influence in preventing the mischief that was there previously, the collisions and the rivalry which much helped bring back peace to the republic. Evidently, when the two worked on their own in different parts, there was no difference of opinion or danger of rivalry erupting. The Federalist 70 reveals that when more than two people are involved in any similar leadership position, there is a danger of having a difference of opinion which is likely to bring about hatred and when such happens it lessens responsibility and weakens the authority making the leadership weak. When the Roman Consuls’ managed to get command in different parts, there was no animosity or rivalry, and so peace and unity were maintained.

In cases where there is a council to help in leadership, there is an appointment to the offices which has led to more mischief as it leads to the impropriety of things. This is where we have the plurality of executive which if anything, tends to deny citizens the security they should have. These securities that the people are denied public opinion and are also limited to identify their opportunity to discover the clearness and the misconduct of the people leading them. This way it is not easy for the people responsible to be punished for their mistakes or even be accountable for their actions. This makes them lose efficacy and credibility as it is not clear to whom the blame ought to fall on to. Depending on the place the accountability varies. In England, for example, though the resolutions of his council bind the King, they are answerable for the advice they give him and therefore will become answerable when things get out of hand. In the republic, on the other hand, every magistrate out to be responsible for their actions in the office but the rule no longer applies, and so it is against the constitution. The general idea of having a council of executives is primarily on the perception that power is better when it belongs to a group of people than when it pertains to a single individual. This way, the rules and decisions are not made by an individual but rather by a group or panel of people. Similarly, it will not be easy to pinpoint who made the errors because the blame will go to the whole board and not to just a single leader. Again credibility and accountability are not provided, which leads to less efficacy and reliability from the people that the council is governing.

The conception of the presidency was founded on the basis on whether to have leadership given to a single entity or to have it delivered to members of a council who are led by one individual. This gave rise to the unitary executive where the president alone embodies all the executive power and as a result, has unlimited ability to direct the many people and institutions within the federal government’s substantial executive branch. This way, there was a division of power in the different arms of government, but there is one overall leader who is the president who holds power over the rest of the executive. The argument of the different type of leadership that has been there in the past is essential as it lays a clearly explained and defined outline as to why the presidency was chosen as the form of leadership and government doing away with all the other types of leadership that were there in the first place. The argument shows the evolution of guidance from one era to another and the disadvantages that all these eras had and the impact that the forms of leadership left on its people. The founding conception of presidency, which is a unitary type of executive has saved America from the fear that would have been there if there were more than one leader. The federalist 70 clearly explains that when power is given to more people, it becomes more liable to be abused and even dangerous when abused it puts the lives of the people at more risk. When the power is placed in the hands of one man, they can quickly and narrowly follow up on his activities and watch every step that the man takes, making it safe for the people as well.

There has been an evolution in the forms of leadership used in different parts of the world. All these leadership styles have had their impact and either driven the state to a better place or have caused havoc to the people bringing destruction. However, the best way to follow up and be accountable is when the leadership is given to a single entity to lead over the others which make the presidency a good symbol of unity of any command where there is no opposition because two people of the same authority are guiding the country or state.