Words: 1090
Theoretically, checks and balance is essentially important between the Executive-Legislative branches in democratic regimes, it can prevent power dominate by either one branch which may result to “absolute power makes absolute corrupt and incompetent”– Duke Clinton. However, the central government wants to assure the transition of Macau sovereignty from Portugal to China smooth and stable, and on the other hand, she also wants to develop a system that is convenient in monitoring Macau SAR government’s activities, and ensure Macau is running within the motherland’s state strategy.
Therefore, the Basic Law of Macau has given more power to the Executive Branch than the Legislative Branch. This inclination of power provided by the Basic Law of Macau makes Macau SAR becoming an Executive-led government. In the following, we will discuss in detail about how the Basic Law shows Executive-led government.
The first point, which is also the most significant identification of Executive-led government of Macau, is the contrast between the influence, or say the interfering power of Executive to Legislative and vice versa. According to the Macau Basic Law Article 51 and 52. When the Chief Executive considered the bills or laws approved by Legislative Assembly do not fit the Macau SAR’s common interest, he can choose refusing to sign the bill.
But on the other hand, when the legislature refuses to pass a budget introduced by the government or any other bill which is considered (by the Chief-Executive) not fitting the overall interests of the Region, after negotiation(the Basic Law doesn’t stated specifically to negotiate with which department, so I will assume this “negotiation” is negotiate with the Legislative Assembly) , if consensus still cannot be reached, the Chief Executive will then have the power to dissolve the Legislative Assembly one time in each term of his or her office after consulting the Executive Council and explain to the public, and re-elect a new Legislature in 90 days.
However, comparing with the legislature, the Chief Executive will only be dismissed in situation according to Article 54, or according to Article 71(7) the Legislative Branch can ‘suggest’ to impeach the Chief Executive if the Chief Executive in involved in serious breach of law or dereliction of duty and he or she refuses to resign, however, the final decision still rest on the Central Government. This shows the post of Chief Executive is a lot more secure comparing with the Legislative Assembly. With this evidence, we can see that the Executive Branch play a more active role compared with the Legislative Branch in practical, and the power of the legislature is strictly limited by the Basic Law. Secondly, in the aspect of implementation of law, the Executive Branch can make and implement the administrative order directly without consulting the legislature.
In general, the law approved by Legislative Assembly is more supreme than administrative order, and can ban the administrative order if the administrative order is against the new law, but according to Article 75, when the agenda is related to government policy, it should be agreed by the Chief Executive in written form before raising the agenda and discuss in the Legislative Assembly. That means the Chief Executive has the power to interfere the important agenda. Moreover, when the law is approved by the legislature, according to Article 78, it still needed to be signed and published by the Chief Executive before implementation. With this type of regulation, it means that every step of the legislature in Macau is directly bounded by the executive’s decision, but the executive have legal power to by-pass the legislature.
This shows the Basic Law gives the Executive Branch more freedom to practice her will to both the government and the civil society compared with the Legislature, which is also an expression of Executive-led government in Macau. Furthermore, Executive-led government can also be showed when we talk about the accountability of the independent departments. According to Article 59 and 60, the CCAC and Comissariado da Auditoria needed to be accountable to the Chief Executive, but not necessary to the Legislative Assembly. On the other hand, the Legislative do not have any power given in the Basic Law to influence the appointment of officers in the Executive Branch. However, the executive branch is given the power by Basic Law to influence the selection of Legislators.
In Article 50(7), it stated that the Chief Executive can appoint some legislators in the Legislative Assembly??? according to Annex II of the Macau Basic Law, there are 7 out of 27 members of the Legislative Assembly is appointed by the Executive Branch in the 2001 Legislative Assembly Election and 7 out of 29 in 2005 Election. That means the Legislative Assembly in Macau have more than of legislator represents the Executive’s interest. Moreover, also according to Annex II, if the method of Legislature election needs to amend after 2009, it should gain agreement from 2/3 of the total number of legislators in the Assembly, and APPROVED by Chief Executive.
Actually, with more than 20% of the Legislators in the Assembly appointed by the government and represents the government’s wills, it is still very hard to gain 2/3 of the total if the Executive Branch doesn’t agree with the change even though if there do not have a regulation of “necessarily approved by the Chief executive” stated in the Basic Law. With this comparison, we can see one more time that how the Basic Law of Macau shows Executive-led government. Basic Law is the linkage between the Central government and Macau SAR government. It is the most important media for the Central government to influence Macau SAR government, and gradually inculcate the sense of belonging of Macau citizens to China. Executive-led government aim to achieve these wills. Moreover, Executive-led government can assist to the theory of “Strong Government Leadership” and help the Chief Executive to practice it.
It is believed by the Central government to be easier to create a stabilized society when Macau SAR is totally transferred to China in 2049 with this type of Leadership. At this moment, 8 years after the 1999 which is the starting point of using the Basic Law, we can experience some of the effects and changes brought by it. However, this type of government is good and practicable, or reasonable but problematic; right now we still cannot conclude. This is still an issue that we shall foresee. But there is one thing certain???the Executive-led government will be practicing according to the Basic Law, and the Basic Law will hold an indispensable linkage between Macau SAR and central government until 2049.