Die Neue Zeit
16th March 2012, 23:01
It has been stated here by some posters that the historical evolution of cabinets, even where they have the power to collectively decide upon government policy, has led them and the related ministerial system to be deemed a bourgeois form of governmental organization. Yet, how so?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_(government)
I can understand the case to be made against presidential cabinets, given the bourgeois approach to separation of powers. However, other than the contentious background of parliamentarism, am I missing something with respect to those cabinets that combine legislative and executive power?
What if cabinets could issue executive-administrative orders, decrees, and edicts without parliamentary oversight, like Mao's early Central People's Government or Castro's pre-1976 Council of Ministers (http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolutionary-provisional-government-t163083/index.html)? Would this not be the same as the Paris Communal Council, only more effective?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_(government)
I can understand the case to be made against presidential cabinets, given the bourgeois approach to separation of powers. However, other than the contentious background of parliamentarism, am I missing something with respect to those cabinets that combine legislative and executive power?
What if cabinets could issue executive-administrative orders, decrees, and edicts without parliamentary oversight, like Mao's early Central People's Government or Castro's pre-1976 Council of Ministers (http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolutionary-provisional-government-t163083/index.html)? Would this not be the same as the Paris Communal Council, only more effective?