Question

Local access late night talk show host Patrick Satku, recently went on a tirade against the Californian institutional structure. He argued that the governor is powerless because he has no legislative power and his administrative power is broken up into other elected offices (i.e. Secretary of State, etc.). He also thinks the judicial system is completely broken because of the process of electing judges, which has little to no oversight and relies on an uninformed public. Do you disagree or agree with Satku? Why?

Answer 1

Bureaucracy has seen itself to be the centre of a lot of debate, both for and against. A system exists to serve particular interests and thus I have various reasons to disagree with Satku.

According to the US government, a governor serves as the chief executive officer and commander-in-chief for their particular state. Governors might not have any legislative powers as such, but their requirement cannot be undermined just by stating that. Satku also said that their administrative power is broken up into various other elected offices. According to me that is better as that power does not reside only with one man. Isn’t that the essence of democracy?

Governors are in charge of implementing state laws and overseeing the executive branch of the government. As governors they are also responsible for advancing and pursuing new and revised policies. Budgets, vetoes, proposals all come under them. It is more of a managerial role dependent on implementation than a role of power.

As this is a democracy we have to include all individuals in the country. This does mean that there will be quite a huge number of uninformed people. But, this argument cannot only be used only against a governor. This is the case with any elected official. What we can try to do is improve the existing system, to create a voter bank of more informed individuals.