The figure of the president is omnipresent in the contemporary media and political landscape. It imposes itself on us during international summits, in television debates, or during major republican ceremonies. Yet, behind this apparent familiarity lies an institution of remarkable complexity, whose nature and powers vary fundamentally from one state to another.
Understanding the presidency therefore requires going beyond the simple observation of its existence to dissect its foundations, mechanisms, and manifestations. This work proposes to conduct an in-depth investigation into this supreme function. It will not only be a matter of listing prerogatives, but of retracing the genesis of this idea, analyzing its legal variations, and observing its living practice, often in tension between the text of the Constitution and the reality of power.
We will thus explore how the same denomination – "president" – can cover realities as different as the all-powerful head of the executive in the American system, the protocol-based arbitrator of the German system, and the republican monarch of the French Fifth Republic. This dive into the heart of the architecture of power is essential to grasp the balances, fragilities, and dynamics that animate our modern democracies.
"The exploration of presidential power reveals the delicate balance between democratic ideals and the practical realities of governance."
To grasp the presidential function in its modernity, a detour through history is essential. The notion of a supreme magistrate, holder of legitimate but non-hereditary authority, does not emerge ex nihilo with the revolutions of modern times. It draws its roots from much older political models.
In classical Athens, the function of archon already represented a supreme magistracy, although its power was tempered by its collegiate nature and the brevity of its term. Rome, then, offered two contrasting models. The Roman Republic instituted the consulate, an office held by two consuls elected for one year, cumulating military and civil powers, but limiting each other by a right of veto. This conception of a strong but shared and temporary executive power constitutes a major precedent. With the advent of the Empire, the figure of the emperor, holder of the imperium and endowed with quasi-absolute authority, prefigured another facet of power: the concentration of sovereignty in the hands of a single man.
The European Middle Ages, dominated by feudal monarchy, seemed to turn its back on these experiments. The king was in no way the equivalent of a president. His legitimacy did not derive from the popular will, but from God, through the rite of coronation, and from birth, through the hereditary principle. The state was confused with the person of the sovereign and his lineage; it was a patrimony to be transmitted, not an impersonal function at the service of an abstract nation. The decisive break would come from the founding revolutions of the 17th and 18th centuries.
It was truly with the American Revolution and the drafting of the Constitution of 1787 that the modern president was invented. The Founding Fathers, traumatized by the arbitrariness of the British crown but aware of the weaknesses of a feeble executive under the Articles of Confederation, had to solve a complex equation: how to create an executive power strong enough to govern effectively, without falling back into tyranny? The debates at the Philadelphia Convention were intense. Some, like Alexander Hamilton, argued for an energetic and single executive. Others feared the resurgence of a disguised monarchy.
The final compromise, crystallized in Article II of the Constitution, was a political innovation of remarkable audacity. It created the office of President of the United States, a single head of state, elected for a four-year term, and endowed with extensive powers: commander-in-chief of the army, legislative veto power, power to appoint high officials and judges, and responsibility for diplomacy. However, this power was neither absolute nor without counterpart. It was carefully framed by a system of "checks and balances": Congress held the power of the purse and to declare war, and the Senate had to confirm appointments and ratify treaties. Above all, the impeachment procedure offered a means to remove a president who had committed "high crimes and misdemeanors." For the first time, a great modern state endowed itself with a republican head of state, powerful, but elected and subject to the law.
If history enlightens us about the genesis of the institution, its true substance is found in the fundamental text that gives it life: the Constitution. It is in this document that the legal figure of the president is sculpted, that the source of his authority is defined, and that the paths, often arduous, that lead to the supreme function are traced.
From a legal point of view, the president is above all the head of state. This designation, apparently simple, conceals a profound meaning. It implies that he is the legal personification of the nation, its supreme representative, both domestically and internationally. He embodies the state in its continuity, beyond political alternations and partisan quarrels. This function of representation is far from anecdotal; it gives his words particular weight and makes his gestures symbols. When he signs a law, when he receives an ambassador, when he delivers a solemn address, he does not act only in his own name, but in the name of the entire community. This dimension radically distinguishes him from other political actors, whose role, however important, remains linked to a party, a faction, or a particular institution.
A fundamental distinction, which follows directly from the architecture of political regimes, is that which opposes the head of state to the head of government. In a presidential regime like the United States, these two functions are merged into a single person: the President fully assumes both roles. On the other hand, in parliamentary and semi-presidential regimes, a separation operates. The head of state (the president or the monarch) ensures the permanence of the nation and ensures respect for the Constitution, while the head of government (the Prime Minister, the Chancellor) is the head of the administration, responsible for daily policy and accountable to Parliament. This dissociation creates a dyarchy at the top of the executive, whose balances are subtle and sometimes conflictual, as the experience of cohabitation in France has often illustrated.
There is not one, but several presidencies. The nature of presidential power, its extent and its limits are largely determined by the type of political regime in which it is inserted. A comparative analysis is therefore necessary to understand how the same function can produce such contrasting realities.
The presidential regime, of which the United States offers the canonical example, is built on the principle of a strict separation of powers. The president and Congress are elected separately, by different modes of election and for different terms. This original independence is the keystone of the system. The president cannot dissolve Congress, and Congress cannot overthrow the president (except by the heavy impeachment procedure). This architecture forces the two powers to cooperate, creating a balance of wills. The American president is a true elected "republican monarch." His constitutional powers are immense: he is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, he appoints federal judges and members of his cabinet (subject to confirmation by the Senate), he has a legislative veto right, and he conducts foreign policy. Yet, in practice, his power is often a "power of persuasion," as political scientist Richard Neustadt theorized. He must negotiate, bargain, and convince parliamentarians, who hold the power of the purse and the vote of laws. American history is thus punctuated by presidents whose legislative ambition has been broken by the obstruction of a hostile Congress. This permanent tension is both the strength and the weakness of the system: it prevents authoritarian drifts but can also generate political paralysis, the "gridlock."
If the Constitution defines the powers of the president, his authority does not rest solely on legal prerogatives. An essential part of his influence emanates from a more elusive but nevertheless fundamental dimension: the symbolism of power. The president is not only a ruler; he is an icon, a figure who embodies the nation and whose gestures, words, and appearance are charged with meaning. This symbolic construction is a central pillar of his authority.
One of the most visible aspects of this symbolism is state ceremonial. The inauguration or enthronement of a new president is much more than a simple administrative transfer of power. It is a founding political ritual, carefully choreographed, which marks the continuity of the state and legitimizes the new leader. The oath on the Constitution, the transfer of nuclear codes, the review of troops, the parade on the Champs-Élysées, or the inaugural ball at the White House are all ritualized acts that inscribe the president in a lineage and confer upon him an almost sacred stature. These ceremonies are addressed not only to citizens; they are also addressed to the other institutions of the state, reminding them of the preeminence of the function.
Beyond the great rites, the president constantly uses what sociologist Pierre Bourdieu called "strategies of consecration." He places himself as the organizer of collective memory. By presiding over national commemorations – whether Armistice Day, national holidays, or tributes to victims of a tragedy – the president assumes the role of grand witness to the nation's history. He interprets the past, draws lessons for the present, and outlines perspectives for the future. Through his speeches, he defines what is worthy of commemoration and how the community should remember. This control of memory is a powerful instrument of national cohesion, which allows welding the community around shared values and narratives.
One of the most constant prerogatives of presidents around the world, regardless of their regime, is the conduct of foreign affairs. On the international stage, the president embodies the sovereignty and interests of his country. This role as chief diplomat places him at the heart of the most complex geopolitical issues, where international law often rubs shoulders with raison d'état.
The most obvious function is that of supreme diplomatic representative. The president is the face of his country to other nations. It is he who hosts international summits, receives state visits, and negotiates treaties. These interactions are not mere protocol formalities. A handshake, a state dinner, a joint declaration are political acts in their own right that can seal an alliance, mark a rapprochement, or, on the contrary, signify disapproval. The president uses this public diplomacy to project an image of his country: a reliable power, a demanding partner, or an ambitious nation.
Parallel to this open diplomacy, the president is the master of a secret and discreet diplomacy. Unofficial channels, exchanges between intelligence services, missions of special envoys constitute the reverse side of international relations. It is often through these channels that great breaks or historical reconciliations are prepared. The president has a unique power to initiate this type of approach, outside immediate parliamentary control and public opinion. The normalization of relations between the United States and China under Nixon, orchestrated by Kissinger, is an archetypal example.
This diplomatic action is inseparable from military power. As commander-in-chief of the armed forces, the president holds the key to the ultimate engagement of force. The decision to deploy troops, launch a special operation, or, in the case of nuclear powers, use the ultimate weapon, rests on his shoulders. This terrible power is generally framed – the U.S. Congress has the power to declare war, the French Parliament must be informed of any military engagement – but in practice, the initiative almost always belongs to the president. "Drone wars," targeted counterterrorism operations, or humanitarian interventions have become the common lot of presidents who must act urgently, often on the basis of incomplete or secret information.
Finally, the modern presidency is inextricably linked to the question of intelligence. The president is the primary recipient of briefings from agencies (CIA, DGSE, etc.). This privileged information, often classified, shapes his vision of the world and his decisions. It gives him a considerable informational advantage over his domestic political adversaries and other international actors. However, this dependence on intelligence carries a risk: that of being locked in an "analytical bubble" or manipulated by agencies pursuing their own agendas. The balance between necessary confidentiality and democratic control of these secret activities remains one of the most thorny challenges of exercising presidential power in the contemporary era. Thus, on the world chessboard, the president constantly moves between law and force, between the light of international summits and the shadow of intelligence services, embodying national sovereignty in all its ambiguity.