"Once upon a time in the quirky village of Ribbitville, there lived a farmer named 'Pak Mul'. Pak Mul wasn't your typical farmer; he specialised in frogs. His pond was brimming with frogs of every colour, size, and croak, making him the talk of the town. While most villagers farmed rice, wheat, and vegetables, Pak Mul had an insatiable passion for frogs," Semar went on with a story. "Pak Mul's frogs were famous for their melodious croaks and vibrant hues. People from nearby villages would flock to Ngerok village to witness the nightly frog concerts and marvel at the amphibian spectacle. Despite his success, Pak Mul was never satisfied. No matter how many frogs he had, he always wanted more. He dreamed of being the Frog King, ruling over an empire of endless croaking.
One day, as Pak Mul was counting his frogs for the fiftieth time that morning, he sighed dramatically and muttered, 'If only I had twice as many frogs! Then I would truly be the greatest frog farmer in all the land!'
Word of Pak Mul's greed reached the wise and whimsical Old man, who decided to visit him. The Oldman found Pak Mul standing by his pond, eyeing his frogs with a mix of pride and dissatisfaction.
'Pak Mul,' the old man called out, 'Why do you look so glum despite having such a marvellous pond full of frogs?'
Pak Mul looked up, startled. 'Oh, old man, my frogs are wonderful, but I need more. I want to be the greatest frog farmer ever, and for that, I need more frogs!'
The Oldman chuckled, his eyes twinkling with mischief. 'Ah, Pak Mul, you see, true greatness doesn't come from having more frogs. It comes from appreciating the frogs you already have. Let me tell you a story.'
Pak Mul nodded eagerly, hoping to discover the secret to endless froggy wealth.
'Once, there was a farmer who had a pond full of frogs, much like yours. But instead of being grateful, he always wanted more. He spent his days and nights catching more frogs, filling every nook and cranny with them. One day, he boasted to the village that he would catch every frog in the land. As he was chasing a particularly elusive frog, he slipped and fell into the pond. The frogs, having had enough of his greed, decided to teach him a lesson. They croaked loudly, forming a chorus that echoed through the village: 'Greed leads to folly, and folly to the pond!' The farmer, soaked and humiliated, learned that true wealth lies in contentment, not in endless accumulation.'
Pak Mul listened. 'Old man, you're right. I've been so focused on getting more frogs that I forgot to appreciate the ones I already have.'
The Old man patted Pak Mul on the back. 'Remember, Pak Mul, the key to happiness is not in the number of frogs you have but in the joy they bring you.'
But apparently, Pak Mul had a knack for forgetting things, and Old Man's advice just went in one ear and out the other. A few days later, there was Pak Mul, sitting on a throne wearing a crown in front of his frogs, probably playing a game of 'Let's Pretend I'm the President!'
Now let's continue with our topic. The fourth alternative is Public Engagement and Communication. It focuses on assessing the government’s transparency, communication strategies, and efforts to engage with citizens. It is analyzing the frequency and clarity of press briefings, public statements, and outreach efforts such as town halls or public consultations. Effective communication builds public trust and conveys a sense of accountability.
In 'The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation' (2007, PublicAffairs), Drew Westen emphasizes that effective communication and emotional engagement are pivotal in shaping public trust in political leaders. Westen argues that voters' decisions are predominantly influenced by emotional responses rather than rational deliberation. He suggests that political campaigns often fail when they rely solely on logical arguments, neglecting the emotional aspects that resonate with the electorate. By crafting messages that evoke emotions such as hope, fear, or empathy, leaders can create a stronger connection with voters, thereby enhancing public trust. Westen's analysis underscores the necessity for politicians to integrate emotional appeals into their communication strategies to effectively engage and persuade the public.
Drew Westen emphasizes that emotions significantly influence political decision-making. Westen argues that voters' choices are more often driven by emotional responses than by rational analysis. He suggests that successful political communication must engage the emotional aspects of the electorate to build trust and support.
Connecting these ideas, the first 100 days serve as a critical window for new administrations to emotionally engage the public. By effectively communicating achievements and demonstrating progress during this period, leaders can evoke positive emotions such as hope and confidence among citizens. This emotional engagement aligns with Westen's assertion that appealing to voters' emotions is essential for political success.
Therefore, the relationship between 100-day government evaluations and Westen's work lies in the strategic use of this initial period to foster emotional connections with the public. By prioritizing actions and communications that resonate emotionally, leaders can build a foundation of trust and support that is crucial for their administration's longevity and effectiveness.
The fifth alternative is the Institutional and Administrative Setup. It focuses on evaluating the establishment of functional and competent administrative structures. It examines the appointment of key officials, the organization of ministries, and the initial steps in reforming bureaucratic processes. A well-organized administration is crucial for implementing policies efficiently.
In Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents: The Politics of Leadership from Roosevelt to Reagan by Richard E. Neustadt (1991, Free Press), institutional competence in the early stages of a presidency is emphasized as critical for setting a foundation of effective leadership. Neustadt’s framework focuses on the president’s ability to influence others within the institutional and political structures of governance, and institutional competence plays a key role in this.
Neustadt argues that the early stages of a presidency are pivotal because they establish patterns of behaviour, decision-making processes, and relationships with key stakeholders. Effective use of institutional resources signals competence and authority to Congress, the bureaucracy, and the public.
Early competence in managing the executive branch and navigating institutional dynamics strengthens the president's credibility. Neustadt emphasizes that a president’s authority is largely rooted in perceptions of strength and effectiveness, which are shaped by how well they handle institutional challenges early on.
Neustadt notes that the president's ability to define and pursue priorities relies heavily on their institutional grasp. Early organizational missteps can squander political capital and make it harder to advance their agenda later.
Institutional competence includes understanding and leveraging the relationships between the presidency and other branches of government, especially Congress. Neustadt stresses that persuasion and negotiation are critical skills, and these require institutional knowledge and strategic insight.
Incompetence or mismanagement early in the presidency can lead to internal disarray and external perceptions of weakness. Neustadt highlights that missteps in managing the White House staff, setting up advisory structures, or handling crises can result in long-term damage to a president's influence.
Neustadt underscores that institutional competence is not just about organizational efficiency but about the president’s ability to command respect, manage relationships, and build a base of power for effective leadership. In the early stages, this competence serves as a foundation for maintaining authority and achieving political objectives throughout the administration.
The sixth alternative is Legislative Engagement. Focuses on reviewing the government’s ability to collaborate with the legislature or other governing bodies, by analyzing legislative proposals introduced, debates held, and the level of bipartisan or multiparty cooperation achieved. This method underscores the importance of coalition-building and functional democracy. In Congress and the Presidency: Institutional Politics in a Separated System by Louis Fisher and David M. Abshire (1998, University Press of Kansas), the authors explore the dynamics between the executive and legislative branches in the United States' separated system of government. They emphasize the necessity of collaboration and mutual respect to ensure effective governance, as both branches have overlapping powers and responsibilities that require negotiation and compromise.
The U.S. Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances, assigning specific powers to the executive (the President) and legislative (Congress) branches. While the President has the power to execute laws, Congress is responsible for creating them, along with oversight functions to ensure laws are implemented as intended. This separation necessitates interaction between the two branches.
Despite their separate powers, the executive and legislative branches must work together to achieve common goals. For instance, Congress relies on the President for leadership in foreign policy, budgeting, and national security. The President depends on Congress for appropriations, authorizations, and legislative support for policy initiatives.
Fisher and Abshire argue that while conflict between the branches is inevitable and often healthy for democracy, collaboration is essential for addressing complex national issues. They provide examples of where collaboration has succeeded and where partisan or institutional conflicts have led to gridlock.
The work outlines several mechanisms that facilitate collaboration. Presidents maintain teams to work directly with Congress to build support for their agendas. Joint efforts between members of both parties and branches help bridge divides. Effective governance often requires leaders to prioritize long-term national interests over short-term political gains.
Increasing polarization can hinder the ability of the branches to find common ground. Each branch seeks to protect its authority, leading to tensions over power balance. The media and public expectations can complicate negotiations by intensifying scrutiny or politicizing issues.
Fisher and Abshire provide historical examples of successful and unsuccessful collaboration, highlighting lessons learned. These examples illustrate how institutional politics shape the balance of power and influence between the branches.
One of the most notable examples of successful collaboration is the passage of the Marshall Plan. After World War II, the United States faced the challenge of aiding war-torn Europe to rebuild economically and politically. President Harry S. Truman and Congress worked together to design and fund this ambitious initiative. The Marshall Plan garnered broad bipartisan support, demonstrating how a unified sense of national purpose can transcend partisan differences. Truman provided strong leadership, articulating the importance of the initiative to both Congress and the American public. Congress played a critical role in debating, shaping, and funding the plan, ensuring it had legislative backing and public accountability.
So, the lesson learned is when the executive and legislative branches collaborate on shared goals, they can achieve transformative results. This success underscores the importance of prioritizing national and international interests over political divisions.
On the other hand, the War Powers Resolution, enacted during the Vietnam War era, illustrates a breakdown in executive-legislative collaboration. Passed over President Richard Nixon’s veto, the resolution sought to reclaim Congress’s constitutional authority to declare war, which had been eroded by executive overreach during the Vietnam War. Deep-seated mistrust between Congress and the Nixon administration undermined efforts to reach a consensus on war powers. The political climate, influenced by the Watergate scandal and Vietnam, exacerbated tensions between the branches.
Ambiguity in Implementation: The resolution's language was vague, leading to continued disputes over its application and effectiveness.
The lesson learned is unilateral actions or an inability to foster trust between branches can lead to policies that are difficult to implement and fail to resolve underlying issues. Effective governance requires clear communication, trust, and mutual respect for constitutional roles.
The Marshall Plan succeeded because leaders prioritized the national interest and maintained open channels of communication. The War Powers Resolution shows the dangers of conflict-driven policymaking that lacks consensus or clarity. Successful collaboration often stems from respect for institutional boundaries and a shared commitment to constitutional principles.
Fisher and Abshire argue that collaboration between the executive and legislative branches is not only constitutionally mandated but also essential for effective governance. They stress that mutual understanding, respect for institutional roles, and a willingness to compromise are crucial for overcoming challenges and achieving national objectives. Without collaboration, the separated system risks inefficiency, dysfunction, and erosion of public trust in government.
Collaboration between the executive and legislative branches does not undermine the system of checks and balances (as happened in the Archipelago country where the legislative branch only acted as a 'rubber stamp.'); instead, it complements and strengthens it. The system is designed to prevent overreach by any branch and ensure effective governance through cooperation within constitutional limits. Here’s how collaboration fits within the framework of checks and balances:
First, collaborative governance within constitutional boundaries
and mutual roles. Each branch has distinct but interdependent responsibilities. For instance, the legislature drafts and passes laws, but the executive implements them. The executive negotiates treaties, but the legislature ratifies them. Passing the annual budget requires negotiation between Congress (power of the purse) and the President (executive leadership). While each branch checks the other’s power, collaboration ensures the government operates smoothly. How do checks operate? Congress can refuse funding for executive initiatives if they overstep legal bounds or lack accountability. The President can veto legislation they find harmful, forcing Congress to revisit or negotiate further.
Second, checks through oversight. Even in collaborative efforts, the legislature maintains oversight to ensure the executive stays within its constitutional limits. Congressional hearings, investigations, and the confirmation of appointments allow Congress to scrutinise executive actions. During the Truman administration, Congress supported the Marshall Plan but also established oversight mechanisms to monitor how funds were used, ensuring transparency and accountability. So, Collaboration does not mean Congress relinquishes its oversight role; it remains vigilant while enabling the executive to act effectively.
Third, checks within collaboration. Even while working together, the branches retain their ability to constrain each other if needed. The President can veto legislation if it conflicts with their vision, but Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds majority. If the President issues executive orders that bypass Congress, the legislature can pass laws to limit their effect or use the courts to challenge overreach. Collaboration is not about unanimity; it involves negotiation, compromise, and the willingness to assert institutional authority when necessary.
Fourth, collaboration prevents Gridlock. While checks and balances protect against overreach, excessive conflict between branches can lead to gridlock, where neither side achieves its objectives. Collaboration allows for Policy Innovation. When both branches align, they can enact comprehensive reforms, as seen in the passage of Social Security (1935) or the Civil Rights Act (1964). Collaboration also allows for National Crisis Management. During crises, such as wartime or economic downturns, collaboration ensures a swift, unified response. For example, after 9/11, Congress and President George W. Bush worked together to pass the Patriot Act, though Congress later reviewed and revised parts of it to address concerns about civil liberties.
Fifth, tension enhances accountability. Collaboration does not eliminate tension—it balances it. The branches maintain a degree of scepticism toward one another, fostering accountability. For instance, the executive branch must justify its policies to Congress to secure funding or legislative approval. Congress must consider the practical implications of its laws, which the executive highlights during negotiations. This dynamic ensures that policies are carefully crafted and reflect both the will of the people (through Congress) and the practical considerations of implementation (through the executive).
In summary, collaboration and checks and balances are not mutually exclusive but mutually reinforcing. Collaboration ensures effective governance, while checks and balances prevent the concentration of power and protect constitutional boundaries. The system thrives when both branches respect each other’s roles, engage in dialogue, and prioritize the nation’s interests above partisan concerns."
